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 § 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.
Claim(s) 20-23 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (TW 202104127) as cited with (US 20220267195).
Regarding claim 20, Chen discloses
A method for producing a glass plate comprising
Performing etching on at least one surface of the glass plate [0058]
Performing cleaning on at least one substrate [0059]
The glass has a textured surface [0065] with concave features [0067] from about 3.5-5.5 microns [0067]/ claim 31.
Chen discloses the density of the textured surface features ranges from 10-100% [0070] which is considered to overlap the claimed amount of 0.1 number/cm2 given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification.
Chen discloses forming an organic film [0060] or resin layer on the textured glass.
Chen does not indicate producing a solar cell module as recited in the preamble however this is intended use of the glass in the method comprised of active steps recited in claim 20 and the glass of Chen is capable of being used in a solar cell module.
This claim preamble is not ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim, particularly where dependent claim 24 is the claim that recites the active step of “placing the solar cell substrate on the one surface”
Regarding claim 21, Chen is considered to apply an organic film without contact of any object as the film is bonding with the glass substrate given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 22, Chen discloses chemically strengthening or thermally strengthening the glass [0028].
Regarding claim 23, Chen discloses a surface is etched thus considered one surface [0020], [0060].
Claim(s) 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (TW 202104127) as cited with (US 20220267195) as applied to claim 20 above and further in view of Kobayashi (JP 2017092242).
Regarding claims 24 and 27, Chen discloses a method comprising the steps of claim 20 resulting in the manufacture of a glass plate with anti-glare properties (abstract). Chen does not disclose the step of present claim 24 of placing the solar cell substrate on the etched and coated surface of the glass.
In analogous art, Kobayashi discloses manufacturing a solar cell module comprising chemically strengthened glass with anti-reflective properties having a solar cell (12) placed on the glass (Fig 1). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the glass of Chen for manufacturing a solar cell module as motivated by Kobayashi thus require adding a solar cell substrate.
Regarding claim 25, the combined teachings of Chen and Kobayashi disclose a solar cell is placed on the antireflective etched side of a glass substrate this is considered the light receiving surface of the glass, the solar cell placed thereon is the light receiving side of the solar cell.
The depth of layer on the light receiving side of the glass substrate will be smaller than the opposite side of the glass because Chen discloses chemically strengthening by immersing in molten salt [0024]-[0032] by thermally or immersion in a salt bath thus yielding compressive stresses at a depth of layer on all surfaces exposed.
Chen suggests etching one surface [0060] with removal of some material thus a skilled artisan knows the surface not etched and not the “light-receiving side” will have a smaller depth of layer and compressive stress, thus satisfying claimed elements A1 and A2.
Regarding A3, Chen discloses the glass can have any shape [0079] it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture a curved solar module concave as motivated to produce the desired shape solar module.
Regarding claim 26, Chen discloses the light receiving side, or textured side as discussed in the rejection of claim 25, to have concave portions as depicted in Fig 1, thus at least part of the peripheral edge is considered to have a reduced thickness defining a step portion.
Regarding claim 28, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the glass substrate with a hole. MPEP 2144.04 states the change in shape or configuration it an obvious matter of design choice absent the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Providing a hole in the glass is not considered to provide any unexpected results to the solar cell module, and a hole is considered to go through the entirety of the substrate thus both surfaces.
Regarding claim 29, Chen forms the resin layer on the surface is performed without increasing the number density of concave portions in the surface of the glass plate above 10 per cm2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have consulted Chen because the pending claims are drawn to a method for producing a solar module, wherein a resin layer- attached glass plate is obtained with excellent resistance to falling objects, after etching a surface of a glass plate,
forming a resin layer on the surface of the glass plate without substantially increasing scratches on the surface cited in the specification [0007], [0019]. Applicant indicates that that the claims of the present application seek to minimize the number of scratches caused during formation of the resin layer while the prior art Chen etches a surface to obtain an article with low sparkle.
In response to this argument, the present claims do not state anything about cracks and additionally, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, prior art, Chen, and the present claims are both directed to etching a glass substrate.
Applicant’s argument that Chen encourages surface defects is not relevant to the claim because the prior art Chen discloses all of the steps of the present claim and does not recite scratches are increased. Applicant states Chen encourages defects, these are equivalent to the claimed concave portions.
Applicant argues Chen does not teach or suggest "forming a resin layer on the one surface without increasing scratches on the one surface" as claim 20 recites. In response to this statement, Chen has no indication of scratches increasing and Applicant has no evidence of such.
Chen forms the resin layer on the surface is performed without increasing the number density of concave portions in the surface of the glass plate above 10 per cm2.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JODI COHEN FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3966. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am-4 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, Alison Hindelang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.
JODI COHEN FRANKLIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JODI C FRANKLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights