DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 24, 2026 has been entered.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed April 24, 2026, the rejections of claims 27-31 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) previously presented in the Office Action sent January 26, 2026 have been withdrawn.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed April 24, 2026, the rejections of claims 27-31 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously presented in the Office Action sent January 26, 2026 have been withdrawn.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed April 24, 2026, the rejections of claims 25-31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously presented in the Office Action sent January 26, 2026 have been substantially maintained and modified only in response to the Amendments to the Claims.
Claims 25-31 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 27-31 are 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 27 recites the broad recitation 0.1 to 30 g/m2, and the claim also recites 1 to 25 g/m2 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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) 25-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wootton (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0247541 A1) in view of Schum et al. (U.S. 2015/0367543 A1) and Steudel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0092815 A1).
With regard to claim 25, Wootton discloses a digital printing method that achieves a solar cell comprising
printing at least a portion of said solar cell (see [0169] teaching at least a portion of the solar cell is achieved by printing), wherein the solar cell comprises
at least one layer on or in a front radiation-receiving side of the solar cell or a solar cell module (dry glazing 116 and dry top encapsulant 112 as a film, Fig. 2-3) comprising
at least one effect pigment (see for example [0167] teaching using pigments in layer 116; see [0173]).
Wootton does not disclose the at least one effect pigment consists of a transparent or semi-transparent flake-form substrate coated with one or more layers of transparent or semi-transparent materials and with a post coating.
However, Schum et al. discloses effect pigments (see [0011]). Schum et al. is analogous art because Schum et al., like applicant and Wootton, is concerned with effect pigments.
Schum et al. teaches an effect pigment can include a multi-layer pigment comprising a flake-form substrate coated with a layer of transparent or semi-transparent metal oxides (see [0034-0039] suggesting glass flake-form substrates with coating of metal oxide layer; see [0047-0048] teaching transparent or semi-transparent layers; see [0043] teaching oxides of Ti, Sn, Si, Al, Zr, and Zn) and with a post coating (see [0047-0048] teaching additional coating layers with different refractive index cited to read on the claimed post coating).
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 effect pigment of Schum et al. for the effect pigment of Wootton 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).
Wootton, as modified above, does not disclose where the amount of the effect pigment in the application medium is in the range of 1 to 25 g/m2.
However, Steudel et al. teaches effect pigments (see Abstract). Steudel et al. is analogous art because Steudel et al., like applicant and Wootton, is concerned with effect pigments.
Steudel et al. teaches the amount of pigment as a result effective variable directly affecting the properties of the pigments depending on the particular transparent medium used (see [0017]).
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 amount of effect pigment in the transparent medium of Wootton, as modified above, and arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the properties of the pigments depending on the particular transparent medium used.
Wootton, as modified above, teaches using pigments on the light incident side of a solar cell or solar cell module (recall Fig. 2-3) but does not specifically teach where the at least one effect pigment and/or an effect pigment layer has a reflection level of 1 to 40% for radiation in the range of 260 to 1200 nm.
However, Steudel et al. teaches effect pigments (see Abstract). Steudel et al. is analogous art because Steudel et al., like applicant and Wootton, is concerned with effect pigments.
Steudel et al. teaches multi-layered pigments (see [0009]) and teaches multilayer pigments exhibit selective reflection or transmission in the visible wavelength range, properties which are responsible for the colour impression, this wavelength-dependent reflection or transmission can be extended to the near infrared region, and multilayer pigments exhibit different reflection or transmission and absorption depending on the angle of incidence of the incident radiation. (see [0009]).
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 selective reflectivity/reflectance level in the at least one effect pigment of Wootton, as modified above, and arrive at the claimed ranges for the selective reflectivity/reflectance level through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the color impression.
With regard to claim 26, Wootton discloses an energy system comprising
a solar cell or a module of a solar cell, and a energy storage means (see Fig. 2-3), wherein the solar cell or solar cell module comprises
at least one layer on or in a front radiation-receiving side of the solar cell or a solar cell module (dry glazing 116 and dry top encapsulant 112 as a film, Fig. 2-3) comprising
at least one effect pigment (see for example [0167] teaching using pigments in layer 116; see [0173]).
Wootton does not disclose the at least one effect pigment consists of a transparent or semi-transparent flake-form substrate coated with one or more layers of transparent or semi-transparent materials and with a post coating.
However, Schum et al. discloses effect pigments (see [0011]). Schum et al. is analogous art because Schum et al., like applicant and Wootton, is concerned with effect pigments.
Schum et al. teaches an effect pigment can include a multi-layer pigment comprising a flake-form substrate coated with a layer of transparent or semi-transparent metal oxides (see [0034-0039] suggesting glass flake-form substrates with coating of metal oxide layer; see [0047-0048] teaching transparent or semi-transparent layers; see [0043] teaching oxides of Ti, Sn, Si, Al, Zr, and Zn) and with a post coating (see [0047-0048] teaching additional coating layers with different refractive index cited to read on the claimed post coating).
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 effect pigment of Schum et al. for the effect pigment of Wootton 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).
Wootton, as modified above, does not disclose where the amount of the effect pigment in the application medium is in the range of 1 to 25 g/m2.
However, Steudel et al. teaches effect pigments (see Abstract). Steudel et al. is analogous art because Steudel et al., like applicant and Wootton, is concerned with effect pigments.
Steudel et al. teaches the amount of pigment as a result effective variable directly affecting the properties of the pigments depending on the particular transparent medium used (see [0017]).
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 amount of effect pigment in the transparent medium of Wootton, as modified above, and arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the properties of the pigments depending on the particular transparent medium used.
Wootton, as modified above, teaches using pigments on the light incident side of a solar cell or solar cell module (recall Fig. 2-3) but does not specifically teach where the at least one effect pigment and/or an effect pigment layer has a reflection level of 1 to 40% for radiation in the range of 260 to 1200 nm.
However, Steudel et al. teaches effect pigments (see Abstract). Steudel et al. is analogous art because Steudel et al., like applicant and Wootton, is concerned with effect pigments.
Steudel et al. teaches multi-layered pigments (see [0009]) and teaches multilayer pigments exhibit selective reflection or transmission in the visible wavelength range, properties which are responsible for the colour impression, this wavelength-dependent reflection or transmission can be extended to the near infrared region, and multilayer pigments exhibit different reflection or transmission and absorption depending on the angle of incidence of the incident radiation. (see [0009]).
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 selective reflectivity/reflectance level in the at least one effect pigment of Wootton, as modified above, and arrive at the claimed ranges for the selective reflectivity/reflectance level through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the color impression.
With regard to claim 27, Wootton discloses a solar cell or solar cell module comprising
at least one dry layer on or in a front radiation-receiving side of the solar cell or solar cell module (dry glazing 116 and dry top encapsulant 112 as a film, Fig. 2-3) comprising
at least one effect pigment (see for example [0167] teaching using pigments in layer 116; see [0173]) and
optionally with a post coating (the claimed “optionally” is interpreted to require with a post coating or not require with a post coating; the cited solar cell or solar cell module is cited to not require with a post coating).
Wootton does not disclose the at least one effect pigment consists of a transparent or semi-transparent flake-form substrate coated with one or more layers of transparent or semi-transparent materials.
However, Schum et al. discloses effect pigments (see [0011]). Schum et al. is analogous art because Schum et al., like applicant and Wootton, is concerned with effect pigments.
Schum et al. teaches an effect pigment can include a multi-layer pigment comprising a flake-form substrate coated with a layer of transparent or semi-transparent metal oxides (see [0034-0039] suggesting glass flake-form substrates with coating of metal oxide layer; see [0047-0048] teaching transparent or semi-transparent layers; see [0043] teaching oxides of Ti, Sn, Si, Al, Zr, and Zn).
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 effect pigment of Schum et al. for the effect pigment of Wootton 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).
Wootton, as modified above, does not disclose where the amount of the effect pigment in the application medium is in the range of 0.1 to 30 g/m2.
However, Steudel et al. teaches effect pigments (see Abstract). Steudel et al. is analogous art because Steudel et al., like applicant and Wootton, is concerned with effect pigments.
Steudel et al. teaches the amount of pigment as a result effective variable directly affecting the properties of the pigments depending on the particular transparent medium used (see [0017]).
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 amount of effect pigment in the transparent medium of Wootton, as modified above, and arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the properties of the pigments depending on the particular transparent medium used.
Wootton, as modified above, does not disclose where the amount of the effect pigment in the application medium is in the range of 1 to 25 g/m2.
However, Steudel et al. teaches effect pigments (see Abstract). Steudel et al. is analogous art because Steudel et al., like applicant and Wootton, is concerned with effect pigments.
Steudel et al. teaches the amount of pigment as a result effective variable directly affecting the properties of the pigments depending on the particular transparent medium used (see [0017]).
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 amount of effect pigment in the transparent medium of Wootton, as modified above, and arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the properties of the pigments depending on the particular transparent medium used.
Wootton, as modified above, teaches using pigments on the light incident side of a solar cell or solar cell module (recall Fig. 2-3) but does not specifically teach where the at least one effect pigment and/or an effect pigment layer has a reflection level of 1 to 40% for radiation in the range of 260 to 1200 nm.
However, Steudel et al. teaches effect pigments (see Abstract). Steudel et al. is analogous art because Steudel et al., like applicant and Wootton, is concerned with effect pigments.
Steudel et al. teaches multi-layered pigments (see [0009]) and teaches multilayer pigments exhibit selective reflection or transmission in the visible wavelength range, properties which are responsible for the colour impression, this wavelength-dependent reflection or transmission can be extended to the near infrared region, and multilayer pigments exhibit different reflection or transmission and absorption depending on the angle of incidence of the incident radiation. (see [0009]).
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 selective reflectivity/reflectance level in the at least one effect pigment of Wootton, as modified above, and arrive at the claimed ranges for the selective reflectivity/reflectance level through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the color impression.
With regard to claim 28, independent claim 27 is obvious over Wootton in view of Schum et al. and Steudel et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Wootton discloses wherein
the at least one effect pigment is comprised in a layer on the exterior of the solar cell, on or in a lamination material, directly on a protective substrate covering a solar cell module; or the at least one effect pigment is comprised in a sol-gel based, polymer-based layer or a layer based on glass frits on an interior or exterior facing glass layer (as depicted in Fig. 2-3, the cited at least one effect pigment is comprised in a layer 116 on the exterior of the solar cell, in a lamination material of 116, directly on a protective substrate 112 covering a solar cell module).
Wootton, as modified above, teaches using pigments on the light incident side of a solar cell or solar cell module (recall Fig. 2-3) but does not specifically teach where the at least one effect pigment and/or an effect pigment layer selectively reflects 1-100% of the visible light of the solar spectrum and has a reflection level of less than 20% for radiation in the range of 260 to 1200 nm.
However, Steudel et al. teaches effect pigments (see Abstract). Steudel et al. is analogous art because Steudel et al., like applicant and Wootton, is concerned with effect pigments.
Steudel et al. teaches multi-layered pigments (see [0009]) and teaches multilayer pigments exhibit selective reflection or transmission in the visible wavelength range, properties which are responsible for the colour impression, this wavelength-dependent reflection or transmission can be extended to the near infrared region, and multilayer pigments exhibit different reflection or transmission and absorption depending on the angle of incidence of the incident radiation. (see [0009]).
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 transparency and the selective reflectivity/reflectance level in the at least one effect pigment of Wootton, as modified above, and arrive at the claimed ranges for transparency and the selective reflectivity/reflectance level through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the color impression.
Wootton, as modified above, does not disclose where the amount of the effect pigment in the application medium is in the range of 1 – 40%.
However, Steudel et al. teaches effect pigments (see Abstract). Steudel et al. is analogous art because Steudel et al., like applicant and Wootton, is concerned with effect pigments.
Steudel et al. teaches the amount of pigment as a result effective variable directly affecting the properties of the pigments depending on the particular transparent medium used (see [0017]).
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 amount of effect pigment in the transparent medium of Wootton, as modified above, and arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the properties of the pigments depending on the particular transparent medium used.
Wootton, as modified above, teaches using pigments on the light incident side of a solar cell or solar cell module (recall Fig. 2-3) but does not specifically teach where the at least one effect pigment and/or an effect pigment layer has a transparency for radiation in the range of 260 to 1200 nm, of at least 30%.
However, Steudel et al. teaches effect pigments (see Abstract). Steudel et al. is analogous art because Steudel et al., like applicant and Wootton, is concerned with effect pigments.
Steudel et al. teaches multi-layered pigments (see [0009]) and teaches multilayer pigments exhibit selective reflection or transmission in the visible wavelength range, properties which are responsible for the colour impression, this wavelength-dependent reflection or transmission can be extended to the near infrared region, and multilayer pigments exhibit different reflection or transmission and absorption depending on the angle of incidence of the incident radiation. (see [0009]).
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 transparency and the selective reflectivity/reflectance level in the at least one effect pigment of Wootton, as modified above, and arrive at the claimed range for transparency through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the color impression.
Wootton, as modified above, does not disclose wherein the thickness of an effect pigment comprising layer is in the range of 1 to 200 µm.
However, the thickness of the glazing layer 116 having the cited at least one effect pigment is a result effective variable directly affecting the structure strength of the layer (see, for example, [0133] of Wootton).
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 cited layer of Wootton, as modified above, and arrive at the claimed range for thickness through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the structural strength of the layer.
Wootton, as modified above, does not disclose the claimed internal quantum efficiency, relative current loss, efficiency reduction, and external quantum efficiency.
However, the claimed internal quantum efficiency, relative current loss, efficiency reduction, and external quantum efficiency are result effective variables directly dependent on the effect pigment providing colour impression since the effect pigment will dictate the light reflection and transmission in the visible wavelength (see [0009] of Steudel et al.).
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 internal quantum efficiency, relative current loss, efficiency reduction, and external quantum efficiency in the solar cell or solar cell module of Wootton, as modified above, by varying the effect pigment a suggested by Steudel et al. and arrive at the claimed ranges for internal quantum efficiency, relative current loss, efficiency reduction, and external quantum efficiency through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the color impression and reflection and transmission in the visible wavelength.
With regard to claim 29, Wootton et al., as modified by Schum et al. and Steudel et al. above, discloses a process for the preparation of solar cells or solar cell modules according to claim 27 (recall rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 above) where
a coating composition comprising at least one effect pigment comprising a transparent or semi-transparent flake-form substrate coated with one or more layers of transparent or semi-transparent materials (recall rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 selecting the effect pigment cited in Schum et al. for the effect pigment in coating composition 116/112 of Wootton) and
optionally a post coating, one or multiple organic or inorganic binders, is applied to the solar cells or solar cell modules (the claimed “optionally” is interpreted to require a post coating, one or multiple organic or inorganic binders, applied to the solar cells or solar cell modules or not require a post coating, one or multiple organic or inorganic binders, applied to the solar cells or solar cell modules; the cited solar cell or solar cell module is cited to not require a post coating, one or multiple organic or inorganic binders, applied to the solar cells or solar cell modules).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wootton (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0247541 A1) in view of Schum et al. (U.S. 2015/0367543 A1) and Steudel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0092815 A1), and in further view of Yang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0069479 A1) and Mitsuzawa et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0276509 A1).
With regard to claim 30, claim 29 is obvious over Wootton in view of Schum et al. and Steudel et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Wootton, as modified above, does not teach wherein the coating composition is applied by knife coating.
However, Steudel et al. teaches effect pigments (see Abstract). Steudel et al. is analogous art because Steudel et al., like applicant and Wootton, is concerned with effect pigments.
Steudel et al. teaches a coating composition including effect pigments can be formed by knife coating (see [0045]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the disposing means to form the at least one effect pigment cited in Wootton, as modified above, for the knife coating technique of Steudel et al. because the simple substitution of a known element known to perform the same function, in the instant case a means to dispose an effect pigment layer, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2143B).
Wootton teaches the visual appearance of solar modules are relatively dark and mostly provided by the dark active areas, as opposed to lighter colored metallic areas (see [0006]). Wootton, as modified above, does not disclose where metal based conductive parts of the solar cells are black.
However, Yang et al. discloses a process of manufacturing a solar cell (see Title) and teaches metal based conductive wiring and bus bars can be made black to improve appearance (see [0048]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have made the conductive parts of Wootton, as modified above, black, as suggested by Yang et al., because it would have improved appearances.
Wootton, as modified above, teaches wherein the metal based conductive part of the solar cell or solar cell module are not visible on the front radiation-receiving side of the solar cell or solar cell module because the appearance of the metal based conductive part is darkened which appears like the darker active areas of the solar cell or solar cell module.
Wootton, as modified above, does not disclose a black sheet located/applied to the rear side of the solar cells or solar modules or a black sheet used.
However, Mitsuzawa et al. teaches a solar module (see Abstract) and teaches the rear side of a solar cells can be painted black to improve aesthetic appeal (see [0003] cited to read on the claimed sheet).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the rear side of the solar cells of Wootton, as modified above, to include the black paint of Mitsuzawa et al. because it would have provided for improved aesthetic appeal.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wootton (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0247541 A1) in view of Schum et al. (U.S. 2015/0367543 A1) and Steudel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0092815 A1), and in further view of Yang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0069479 A1).
With regard to claim 31, independent claim 28 is obvious over Wootton in view of Schum et al. and Steudel et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Wootton discloses wherein
the at least one dry layer containing the at least one effect pigment is located within visible parts of the solar cell or solar cell module (see Fig. 2-3 depicting the at least one dry layer 116/112 containing the at least one effect pigment located within visible parts of the solar cell such as the top light incident side of the solar cell which would be visible).
Wootton, as modified above, teaches using pigments on the light incident side of a solar cell or solar cell module (recall Fig. 2-3) but does not specifically teach where the at least one effect pigment and/or an effect pigment layer selectively reflects 5-40% of the visible light of the solar spectrum, has a reflection level of 1 to 30% for radiation in the range of 260 to 1200 nm, and has a reflection level of less than 10% for radiation in the range of 260 to 1200 nm.
However, Steudel et al. teaches effect pigments (see Abstract). Steudel et al. is analogous art because Steudel et al., like applicant and Wootton, is concerned with effect pigments.
Steudel et al. teaches multi-layered pigments (see [0009]) and teaches multilayer pigments exhibit selective reflection or transmission in the visible wavelength range, properties which are responsible for the colour impression, this wavelength-dependent reflection or transmission can be extended to the near infrared region, and multilayer pigments exhibit different reflection or transmission and absorption depending on the angle of incidence of the incident radiation. (see [0009]).
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 transparency and the selective reflectivity/reflectance level in the at least one effect pigment of Wootton, as modified above, and arrive at the claimed ranges for transparency and the selective reflectivity/reflectance level through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the color impression.
Wootton, as modified above, does not disclose where the amount of the effect pigment in the application medium is in the range of 1-15% and 0.4 to 30 g/m2, 1 to 16 g/m2, and 0.1 to 3.1 g/m2.
However, Steudel et al. teaches effect pigments (see Abstract). Steudel et al. is analogous art because Steudel et al., like applicant and Wootton, is concerned with effect pigments.
Steudel et al. teaches the amount of pigment as a result effective variable directly affecting the properties of the pigments depending on the particular transparent medium used (see [0017]).
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 amount of effect pigment in the transparent medium of Wootton, as modified above, and arrive at the claimed ranges for weight percent and g/m2 through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the properties of the pigments depending on the particular transparent medium used.
Wootton, as modified above, does not disclose where said lamination material is TPU.
However, Steudel et al. teaches the transparent medium including the effect pigment can be TPU (see [0048]).
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 TPU material of Steudel et al. for the material incorporating the effect pigment of Wootton, as modified above, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case a transparent material incorporating an effect pigment, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
Wootton, as modified above, teaches using pigments on the light incident side of a solar cell or solar cell module (recall Fig. 2-3) but does not specifically teach where the at least one effect pigment and/or an effect pigment layer has a transparency for radiation greater than 80%.
However, Steudel et al. teaches effect pigments (see Abstract). Steudel et al. is analogous art because Steudel et al., like applicant and Wootton, is concerned with effect pigments.
Steudel et al. teaches multi-layered pigments (see [0009]) and teaches multilayer pigments exhibit selective reflection or transmission in the visible wavelength range, properties which are responsible for the colour impression, this wavelength-dependent reflection or transmission can be extended to the near infrared region, and multilayer pigments exhibit different reflection or transmission and absorption depending on the angle of incidence of the incident radiation. (see [0009]).
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 transparency in the at least one effect pigment of Wootton, as modified above, and arrive at the claimed ranges for transparency through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the color impression.
Wootton teaches the visual appearance of solar modules are relatively dark and mostly provided by the dark active areas, as opposed to lighter colored metallic areas (see [0006]). Wootton, as modified above, does not disclose where metal based conductive parts of the solar cells are black.
However, Yang et al. discloses a process of manufacturing a solar cell (see Title) and teaches metal based conductive wiring and bus bars can be made black to improve appearance (see [0048]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have made the conductive parts of Wootton, as modified above, black, as suggested by Yang et al., because it would have improved appearances.
Wootton, as modified above, teaches wherein the metal based conductive part of the solar cell or solar cell module are not visible on the front radiation-receiving side of the solar cell or solar cell module because the appearance of the metal based conductive part is darkened which appears like the darker active areas of the solar cell or solar cell module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues one of ordinary skill would not look to Steudel to make the alleged combination because Steudel is concerned with controlling thermal aspects of light in the context of agricultural sheeting. However, this argument is not persuasive.
Steudel is concerned with multilayer pigments which exhibit "selective reflection or transmission in the visible wavelength range", properties which are responsible for the "colour impression" (see [0009]).
While Steudel's application is to control thermal aspects of light, the mechanism by which Steudel accomplishes this is by controlling the pigments to have tailored reflection or transmission in the visible wavelength range, the properties which are responsible for the colour impression.
Similarly, Applicant and Wootton are also concerned with controlling pigments to have tailored reflection or transmission for the purpose of controlling the colour impression/appearance.
Applicant argues following Steudel's teachings would clearly result in undesired loss of efficiency of the solar cell. However, this argument it not persuasive.
Wootton already teaches balancing efficiency with a desired color appearance of the solar cell, and already teaches this can be accomplished by use of pigments ( recall [0173], [0032-0034], and [0019-0024]).
Steudel is merely cited to teach the amount of pigment and the transparency and selective reflectivity/reflectance level are result effective variables.
Applicant argue the goal of Steudel to create improved agricultural sheathing for thermal management makes no sense in the context of a solar cell. However, this argument is not persuasive.
Steudel details the mechanism for creating "improved agricultural sheathing for thermal management" is by controlling pigments to exhibit selective reflection or transmission in the visible wavelength range, properties which are responsible for the colour impression.
Applicant and Wootton are also concerned with controlling pigments to have tailored reflection or transmission for the purpose of controlling the colour impression/appearance, which Wootton explains is pertinent for solar cells when achieving a desired color appearance of the solar cell ( recall [0173], [0032-0034], and [0019-0024]).
Conclusion
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 May 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights