DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 20-22, 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Griffith et al. (US 2022/0360211).
Regarding claim 1, Griffith discloses a system (100), comprising:
a plurality of photovoltaic modules (110) installed on a roof deck (see Figure 17),
wherein the roof deck is planar (it is disclosed the corrugation can be configured based on intended application to flat roofs or various angles and surfaces; [0085]; see Figure 17),
wherein the plurality of photovoltaic modules includes at least a first photovoltaic module (110A) and a second photovoltaic module (110B) (see Figure 8), wherein the first photovoltaic module and the second photovoltaic module are arranged in an array on the roof deck (see Figure 17), wherein each of the plurality of photovoltaic modules comprises:
a first end (left side in Figure 3), a second end opposite the first end (right side in Figure 3), and a first location between the first end and the second end (“A” in annotated Figure 3 below);
a first plurality of solar cells (305 first from the left in Figure 3);
a second plurality of solar cells (305 second from the left in Figure 3), wherein the first plurality of solar cells in in electrical connection with the second plurality of solar cells (electrically connected via electrical lines 345; [0051]);
an encapsulant layer (740), wherein the encapsulant layer encapsulates the first plurality of solar cells and the second plurality of solar cells ([0066]; see Figure 7);
a frontsheet (top layer 710), wherein the frontsheet is above an upper surface of the encapsulant layer (see Figure 7);
a backsheet (750), wherein the backsheet is below a lower surface of the encapsulant layer (see Figure 7); and
a first portion (see annotated Figure 3 below where the arrow is pointing) and a second portion (the remaining portion of the backsheet area), wherein the first portion is planar and extends between the first end and the first location (the first portion of the backsheet is planar, as set forth below), wherein the backsheet of the first portion contacts the roof deck (the backsheet of the first portion at least contacts the roof deck at the edge as shown in Figure 17 or is indirectly in contact with the roof deck through base 335), wherein the second portion extends between the first location and the second end (see annotated Figure 3 below), wherein the second portion includes a wireway (wiring 345), wherein the first plurality of solar cells is positioned within the first portion, and wherein the second plurality of solar cells is positioned within the second portion (see Figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
369
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Griffith discloses a photovoltaic module (110) comprising:
a first end (left side in Figure 3), a second end opposite the first end (right side in Figure 3), and a first location between the first end and the second end (“A” in annotated Figure 3 below);
a first plurality of solar cells (305 first from the left in Figure 3);
a second plurality of solar cells (305 second from the left in Figure 3), wherein the first plurality of solar cells in in electrical connection with the second plurality of solar cells (electrically connected via electrical lines 345; [0051]);
an encapsulant layer (740), wherein the encapsulant layer encapsulates the first plurality of solar cells and the second plurality of solar cells ([0066]; see Figure 7);
a frontsheet (top layer 710), wherein the frontsheet is above the encapsulant layer (see Figure 7);
a backsheet (substructure 750),
wherein the backsheet is below a lower surface of the encapsulant layer (see Figure 7); and
a first portion (see annotated Figure 3 below where the arrow is pointing) and a second portion (the remaining portion of the backsheet area), wherein the first portion is planar and extends between the first end and the first location (the first portion of the backsheet is planar, as set forth below), wherein the second portion extends between the first location and the second end (see annotated Figure 3 below), wherein the first plurality of solar cells is positioned within the first portion, and wherein the second plurality of solar cells is positioned within the second portion (see Figure 3),
wherein the photovoltaic module is configured to be installed on a planar roof deck (see Figure 17), and
wherein the backsheet of the first portion is configured to contact the planar roof deck (the backsheet of the first portion at least contacts the roof deck at the edge as shown in Figure 17 or is indirectly in contact with the roof deck through base 335).
PNG
media_image1.png
369
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3 and 21, Griffith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the backsheet comprises a polymer material (it is disclosed the substructure can be plastic; [0045]).
Regarding claims 4 and 22, Griffith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the backsheet comprises at least one of a polyolefin elastomer (POE), a dielectric material, a thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO), or a continuous fiber tape (CFT) (plastic is a dielectric material).
Regarding claims 8 and 26, Griffith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the first plurality of solar cells includes at least a first string (540A), wherein the second plurality of solar cells includes at least a second string (540B), wherein the first string extends in a first direction (vertical in Figure 5), wherein the second string extends in a second direction (horizontal in Figure 5), wherein the first direction is different than the second direction (see Figure 5).
Regarding claims 9 and 27, Griffith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction (see Figure 5).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 23, 24 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith et al. (US 2022/0360211) in view of Gaume et al. (US 2018/0331241).
Regarding claims 5 and 23, Griffith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the frontsheet can comprise various suitable transparent or translucent materials such as plastic, glass, or the like ([0045]), where some embodiments can include polymer and glass variants ([0075]), but the reference does not expressly disclose the frontsheet comprise a polymer layer, and a glass layer, wherein the glass layer is juxtaposed with the encapsulant layer.
Gaume discloses a photovoltaic module (1) comprising a front face (2) composed of glass and/or a polymer material such as ETFE ([0003], [0035], and [0042]-[0043]; see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frontsheet of Griffith by utilizing a frontsheet composed of a polymer layer and a glass layer, as taught by Gaume, so that a thinner glass layer can be used and thus, reducing the overall weight of the photovoltaic module ([0104]).
While modified Griffith does not expressly disclose the glass layer is juxtaposed with the encapsulant layer, there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for the order of the polymer layer and the glass layer of the frontsheet in the device of modified Griffith, such that the order of the layers is either the polymer layer or the glass layer being juxtaposed to the encapsulant layer. Therefore, absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified, predictable solutions disclosed above, where the glass layer is juxtaposed with the encapsulant layer in the device of modified Griffith, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claims 6 and 24, modified Griffith discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Gaume further discloses the polymer layer comprises at least one of an ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE) or a polyolefin elastomer (POE) (as set forth above).
As modified Griffith is not limited to any specific examples of polymer material and as ETFE as a frontsheet in a photovoltaic module were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Gaume above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any suitable polymer material, including ETFE in the device of modified Griffith. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 32, Griffith discloses a system (100), comprising:
a plurality of photovoltaic modules (110) installed on a planar roof deck (it is disclosed the corrugation can be configured based on intended application to flat roofs or various angles and surfaces; [0085]; see Figure 17),
wherein the plurality of photovoltaic modules includes at least a first photovoltaic module (110A) and a second photovoltaic module (110B) (see Figure 8), wherein the first photovoltaic module and the second photovoltaic module are arranged in an array on the roof deck (see Figure 17), wherein each of the plurality of photovoltaic modules comprises:
a first end (left side in Figure 3), a second end opposite the first end (right side in Figure 3), and a first location between the first end and the second end (“A” in annotated Figure 3 below);
a first plurality of solar cells (305 first from the left in Figure 3);
a second plurality of solar cells (305 second from the left in Figure 3), wherein the first plurality of solar cells in in electrical connection with the second plurality of solar cells (electrically connected via electrical lines 345; [0051]);
an encapsulant layer (740), wherein the encapsulant layer encapsulates the first plurality of solar cells and the second plurality of solar cells ([0066]; see Figure 7);
a frontsheet (top layer 710), wherein the frontsheet is above an upper surface of the encapsulant layer (see Figure 7);
a backsheet (750), wherein the backsheet is below a lower surface of the encapsulant layer (see Figure 7); and
a first portion (see annotated Figure 3 below where the arrow is pointing) and a second portion (the remaining portion of the backsheet area), wherein the first portion is planar and extends between the first end and the first location (the first portion of the backsheet is planar, as set forth below), wherein the backsheet of the first portion contacts the planar roof deck (the backsheet of the first portion at least contacts the roof deck at the edge as shown in Figure 17 or is indirectly in contact with the roof deck through base 335), wherein the second portion is curved and extends between the first location and the second end (see annotated Figure 3 below), wherein the second portion includes a wireway (wiring 345), wherein the first plurality of solar cells is positioned within the first portion, and wherein the second plurality of solar cells is positioned within the second portion (see Figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
369
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Griffith further discloses the frontsheet can comprise various suitable transparent or translucent materials such as plastic, glass, or the like ([0045]), where some embodiments can include polymer and glass variants ([0075]), but the reference does not expressly disclose the frontsheet comprise a polymer layer, and a glass layer, wherein the glass layer is juxtaposed with the encapsulant layer.
Gaume discloses a photovoltaic module (1) comprising a front face (2) composed of glass and/or a polymer material such as ETFE ([0003], [0035], and [0042]-[0043]; see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frontsheet of Griffith by utilizing a frontsheet composed of a polymer layer and a glass layer, as taught by Gaume, so that a thinner glass layer can be used and thus, reducing the overall weight of the photovoltaic module ([0104]).
While Griffith does not expressly disclose the glass layer is juxtaposed with the encapsulant layer, there is a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for the order of the polymer layer and the glass layer of the frontsheet in the device of Griffith, such that the order of the layers is either the polymer layer or the glass layer being juxtaposed to the encapsulant layer. Therefore, absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified, predictable solutions disclosed above, where the glass layer is juxtaposed with the encapsulant layer in the device of Griffith, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Griffith does not disclose a first planar portion and a planar roof deck because the reference discloses solar panels that are corrugated adapted to align with corrugated roofs.
However, the claim has only required the first portion of the backsheet to be planar, which Griffith discloses, as set forth above, and Griffith discloses the roof can be a planar flat roof, as set forth above.
Additionally, Applicant argues any modification to Griffith would change the principle of operation of Griffith according to Figures 20a and 20b. However, the configuration of Griffith in Figures 20a and 20b is not the embodiment relied upon in the prior rejection, such that it is unclear how it is relevant. Further, Figure 17 of Griffith is the embodiment currently relied upon in the above Office Action.
Applicant also argues that Griffith does not teach the claimed subject matter in claims 5 and 32, and withdrawal of the 102 rejection is therefore requested.
However, claim 5 was not previously rejected under 35 USC 102 and claim 32 is new. Interestingly, claims 6, 23, and 24 were not mentioned by Applicant when they were all rejected together with claim 5 previously.
Applicant further argues that Gaume does not remedy the deficiencies of Griffith because it teaches solar elements rather than application of solar elements on a roof. However, it is unclear why Gaume is required to teach application of solar elements on a roof when Gaume was not relied upon to teach that feature since Griffith already teaches the feature. Gaume was relied upon only to teach the configuration of the frontsheet, which is irrelevant to whether or not the solar elements are applied to a roof. Further, Gaume discloses the invention can be used for many applications including on a roof of a building ([0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722