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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 8/19/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The art rejections are withdrawn due to new claim limitations.
New analysis follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 12, 17-19, 21-23, 26-28, and 31-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2023/194420 to Hunger (of record), and further in view of US 2008/0023064 to Hayes II.
Regarding claims 1, 6-8, 12, and 17-19, Hunger teaches a photovoltaic module (Fig. 1, P18/L30-35) comprising
A first polycarbonate layer 11 (P20/L21-24) having a first major surface (facing top of page in Fig. 1) and a second major surface (facing bottom of page)
A first thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) layer 12a having a first major surface (facing top of page in Fig. 1) and a second major surface (facing bottom of page) (P20/L1-19 recite TPU as a very preferable material for layer 12a, etc.), wherein the first major surface of the first TPU layer is in contact with the second major surface of the first polycarbonate layer 11
A first encapsulation layer 12b having a first major surface (facing top of page) and a second major surface (facing bottom) (P5/L1-18), wherein the first major surface of the first encapsulation layer is in contact with the second major surface of the first TPU layer 12a
A solar cell 13 having a first major surface (facing top) and a second major surface (facing bottom) (P21/L7-16), wherein the first major surface of the solar cell is in contact with the second major surface of the first encapsulation layer (P8/32-35; in the illustrated embodiment of Fig. 1, an additional layer 12c intervenes between layer 12b and the solar cell 13; however, a person having ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage an embodiment lacking layer 12c, according to P7/L1-6; MPEP §2131.02.III.).
Hunger does not teach that the first encapsulation layer comprises ionomers. Hayes II teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form such a layer to comprise ionomers because such a layer would have excellent adhesion to other layers within the module (¶0039, 0060).
Per claims 6 and 8, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 1. The first TPU layer 12a and the first encapsulation layer 12b has a thickness between 0.005 mm and 1 mm (P15/L1-3), a range which substantially overlaps that claimed. MPEP §2131.03.II.
Per claim 7, Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 1. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the first encapsulation layer of a combination of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), polyolefin elastomer (POE), or polyvinylbutyral (PVB), in addition to ionomers, because it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art-recognized purpose (P20/L1-19). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Per claim 12, Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 1. Hunger teaches that the module further comprises
a second polycarbonate layer 14 (Fig. 1, seemingly mislabeled as 15 sometimes in the text) having a first major surface (facing top of page) and a second major surface (facing bottom of page) (P20/L21-24)
a second encapsulation layer 15 having a first major surface (facing top) and a second major surface (facing bottom), wherein the second major surface of the second encapsulation layer is in contact with the second major surface of the solar cell 13.
The embodiment of Fig. 1 does not include a second TPU layer. Hunger elsewhere teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include a TPU layer as a bonding layer (P23/L12-17). Further, locating the TPU layer as a second TPU layer having a first major surface and a second major surface, such that the first major surface of the second TPU layer is in contact with the second major surface of the second polycarbonate layer 14 and the second major surface in contact with the first major surface of the second encapsulation layer 15 would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to ensure adhesion between those layers.
Per claim 17, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 12. Hunger does not specifically teach the thickness of a second TPU layer. However, the reference elsewhere teaches that such layers are suitably formed with a thickness between 0.005 mm and 1 mm (P15/L1-3). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the second TPU layer of a thickness which overlaps that claimed because it is a conventional thickness for such a layer in a solar module. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Per claim 18, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 12. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the second encapsulation layer of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), polyolefin elastomer (POE), or polyvinylbutyral (PVB), because it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art-recognized purpose (P20/L1-19). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Per claims 19, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 12. The second encapsulant layer 15 has a thickness between 0.005 mm and 1 mm (P15/L1-3), a range which substantially overlaps that claimed. MPEP §2131.03.II.
Regarding claims 21-23, 26-28, and 31-35, Hunger teaches a method of building a photovoltaic module (Fig. 1, P18/L30-35, P22/L22-32) comprising
Positioning a first encapsulation layer 12b (P5/L1-18) having a second major surface (facing bottom of page in Fig. 1) and a first major surface (facing top of page) and a solar cell 13 (P21/L7-16) having a first major surface (facing top) and a second major surface (facing bottom) such that the first major surface of the solar cell is in contact with the second major surface of the first encapsulation layer (P8/32-35; in the illustrated embodiment of Fig. 1, an additional layer 12c intervenes between layer 12b and the solar cell 13; however, a person having ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage an embodiment lacking layer 12c, according to P7/L1-6; MPEP §2131.02.III.)
Positioning a first thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) layer 12a having a first major surface (facing top of page in Fig. 1) and a second major surface (facing bottom of page) (P20/L1-19 recite TPU as a very preferable material for layer 12a, etc.), such that the first major surface of the first encapsulation layer 12b is in contact with the second major surface of the first TPU layer
Positioning a first polycarbonate layer 11 (P20/L21-24) having a first major surface (facing top of page in Fig. 1) and a second major surface (facing bottom of page) such that the first major surface of the first TPU layer 12a is in contact with the second major surface of the first polycarbonate layer
Laminating the first polycarbonate layer 11, the first TPU layer 12a, the first encapsulation layer 12b, and the solar cell 13.
Hunger does not teach that the first encapsulation layer comprises ionomers. Hayes II teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form such a layer to comprise ionomers because such a layer would have excellent adhesion to other layers within the module (¶0039, 0060).
Per claim 22, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 21. The first TPU layer 12a and the first encapsulant layer 12b are coextruded in an embodiment (P16/L8-11).
Per claim 23, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 21. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the first encapsulation layer of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), polyolefin elastomer (POE), or polyvinylbutyral (PVB), in addition to ionomers, because it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art-recognized purpose (P20/L1-19). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Per claim 26, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 21. Hunger teaches that the method further comprises
positioning a second encapsulation layer 15 having a first major surface (facing top) and a second major surface (facing bottom) such that the first major surface of the second encapsulation layer is in contact with the second major surface of the solar cell 13
positioning a second polycarbonate layer 14 (P20/L21-24) (Fig. 1, seemingly mislabeled as 15 sometimes in the text) having a first major surface (facing top of page) and a second major surface (facing bottom of page)
The embodiment of Fig. 1 does not include a second TPU layer. Hunger elsewhere teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include a TPU layer as a bonding layer (P23/L12-17). Further, positioning the TPU layer as a second TPU layer having a first major surface and a second major surface, such that the first major surface of the second TPU layer is in contact with the second major surface of the second polycarbonate layer 14 and the second major surface is in contact with the first major surface of the second encapsulation layer 15 would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to ensure adhesion between those layers.
Per claim 27, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 26. Hunger teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to coextrude the second TPU layer and the second encapsulant layer, as coextruding adjacent layers is conventional (P16/L8-11). Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Per claim 28, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 27. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the second encapsulation layer of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), polyolefin elastomer (POE), or polyvinylbutyral (PVB), because it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art-recognized purpose (P20/L1-19). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Per claim 31, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 21. Hunger teaches that the lamination is performed by a vacuum press, for a time of 20-30 minutes (P23/L19-24), a range which includes the time claimed. MPEP §2131.03.II.
Per claim 32, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 21. Hunger teaches a preferable temperature for performing lamination ranging from 130oC to 160oC (P23/L19-24). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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). MPEP §2144.05.
Per claim 33, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 21. Hunger teaches that the lamination is performed at a pressure up to 900 mbar (P23/L12-17). Hunger elsewhere teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the pressure of lamination based on the type of materials used in the layers (P22/L22-27). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Per claim 34, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 21. The lamination comprises encapsulant lamination (several of the layers of the module are specifically recited as encapsulants, P23/L19-24).
Per claim 35, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 21. The method further comprises framing the photovoltaic module (P23/L29).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunger and Hayes II as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2007/0054991 to Rudiger (of record).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 1. Hunger does not specifically teach that the first polycarbonate layer comprises a UV stabilizer. Rudiger teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include a benzotriazole as a UV stabilizer in the first polycarbonate layer in order to prevent yellowing (¶0002-0005, 0012, 0020, 0039).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunger and Hayes II as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Rudiger.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 12. Hunger does not specifically teach that the second polycarbonate layer comprises a UV stabilizer. Rudiger teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include a benzotriazole as a UV stabilizer in the second polycarbonate layer in order to prevent yellowing (¶0002-0005, 0012, 0020, 0039).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunger and Hayes II as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2010/0108127 to Hayes (of record).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 1. Hunger does not teach a first abrasion layer having a first major surface and a second major surface, the second major surface of the first anti-abrasion layer in contact with the first major surface of the first polycarbonate layer. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include a first abrasion layer positioned as claimed, and formed of fluoropolymers, so that the first polycarbonate layer experiences less abrasion by sand and haze (¶0003, 0009, 0054).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunger and Hayes II as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view Hayes.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 12. Hunger does not teach a second abrasion layer having a first major surface and a second major surface, the second major surface of the second anti-abrasion layer in contact with the first major surface of the second polycarbonate layer. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include a second abrasion layer positioned as claimed, and formed of fluoropolymers, so that the second polycarbonate layer experiences less abrasion by sand and haze (¶0003, 0009, 0054).
Claim(s) 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunger and Hayes II as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view Hayes.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 21. Hunger does not teach positioning a first abrasion layer having a first major surface and a second major surface, the second major surface of the first anti-abrasion layer in contact with the first major surface of the first polycarbonate layer. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to position a first abrasion layer positioned as claimed, and formed of fluoropolymers, so that the first polycarbonate layer experiences less abrasion by sand and haze (¶0003, 0009, 0054).
Claim(s) 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunger and Hayes II as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view Hayes.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 26. Hunger does not teach positioning a second abrasion layer having a first major surface and a second major surface, the second major surface of the second anti-abrasion layer in contact with the first major surface of the second polycarbonate layer. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include a second abrasion layer positioned as claimed, and formed of fluoropolymers, so that the second polycarbonate layer experiences less abrasion by sand and haze (¶0003, 0009, 0054).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunger and Hayes II as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2009/0114262 to Adriani (of record).
Regarding claim 9, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 1. Hunger teaches that the module is framed (P23/L29), but does not specifically teach a frame in contact with one or more edges of the first polycarbonate layer, the first TPU layer, the first encapsulation layer, and the solar cell. Adriani teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form a frame in contact with those layers so that the module can be secured to an installation site (¶0003, 0042).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunger and Hayes II as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Adriani.
Regarding claim 20, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 19. Hunger teaches that the module is framed (P23/L29), but does not specifically teach a frame in contact with one or more edges of the second polycarbonate layer, the second TPU layer, the second encapsulation layer, and the solar cell. Adriani teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form a frame in contact with those layers so that the module can be secured to an installation site (¶0003, 0042).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunger and Hayes II as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0214516 to Brounne (of record).
Regarding claim 10, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 1. Hunger does not explicitly teach a wavelength at which the solar cell converts energy to electricity. Brounne teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to choose a solar cell which converts energy having an energy of 700 nm to 1100 nm to electricity, as such conversion is done efficiently (¶0051). The range taught by Brounne is encompassed by the claimed range.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunger and Hayes II as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2011/0036390 to Nelson (of record).
Regarding claim 11, modified-Hunger teaches the limitations of claim 1. Hunger teaches that the thickness of layers such as the first polycarbonate layer should be within a range less than 1 mm (P14/L34-P15/L3). Hunger does not specifically teach an average transmittance of light or a thickness of the first polycarbonate layer. However, Nelson teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the transmittance of light from 400 nm to 1100nm because it is a range of sunlight conventionally used by solar cells (¶0022).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On p. 9 of the 7/21/2026 Remarks, Applicant refers to data in the original disclosure, in support of a combination of a TPU layer and an encapsulation layer comprising ionomers as providing a non-obvious durability in bonding between layers.
Examiners must consider comparative data in the specification which is intended to illustrate the claimed invention in reaching a conclusion with regard to the obviousness of the claims. In re Margolis, 785 F.2d 1029, 228 USPQ 940 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP §716.01(a). Fig. 7A illustrates that a mechanical adhesion text includes a layer/stack of encapsulant between two polycarbonate slides. According to Fig. 8, the most relevant comparison seems to be between examples TPU-1, TPU-2, TPU-PVB-1, and TPU-Ion-1.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). MPEP §716.02(d). It is not clear that the encapsulant layer is symmetrically deployed between the polycarbonate slides. In other words, it is unclear if TPU-Ion-1 represents a stack of PC/TPU/ionomer/PC or PC/TPU/ionomer/TPU/PC. If the stack is arrayed as PC/TPU/ionomer/TPU/PC, the data may represent a more relevant test of the claimed photovoltaic module, as claims 12, 26 recite a photovoltaic module with two polycarbonate layers and TPU, encapsulant layers stacked symmetrically. If the stack is arrayed as PC/TPU/ionomer/PC, the data is also reflecting mechanical adhesion of ionomer to PC, which is not clearly relevant to the claimed module. It is not clear that the objective evidence is commensurate in scope with the claims.
The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). MPEP §716.02(b). The data show that TPU-1, TPU-2 samples (assumed to be distinct samples of the same layer sequence) break around 4 mm displacement, after a maximum shear stress of about 5 MPa. The TPU-PVB-1 sample breaks around 6 mm displacement, after a shear stress of about 4.5 MPa. The TPU-Ion-1 sample very briefly peaks at about 2.5 MPa stress, and does not seem to break even after 10 mm. The most clear conclusion comes from paragraph [0111] of the instant specification: “The higher displacement suggests bonds between different layers would remain more stable under harsh environmental conditions, such as those simulated by the DH and HF tests. This may include higher resistance to moisture in high humidity environments.”
Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP §716.02. It is unclear if the data proffered is commensurate in scope with the claims, and therefore it is insufficient to rebut the prima facie reasoning of obviousness presented above. Further, Hayes II cited in the rejections above specifically recites “The surface layers… made of ionomers… provide excellent adhesion to the other solar cell laminate layers …” (¶0060).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
