Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/089,947

SOLAR CELL MODULE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SOLAR CELL MODULE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 25, 2025
Examiner
SUN, MICHAEL Y
Art Unit
1728
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Panasonic Holdings Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
56%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
84%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 56% of resolved cases
56%
Career Allow Rate
293 granted / 519 resolved
-8.5% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+27.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
573
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
61.9%
+21.9% vs TC avg
§102
16.1%
-23.9% vs TC avg
§112
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 519 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I, claims 1 and 8-18 in the reply filed on 2/17/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 2-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/17/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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, 8-11, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Huang (US Pub No. 2017/0194102) Regarding Claim 1, Huang et al. teaches a solar cell module [Fig. 1, 0023], comprising: a substrate [11, Fig. 1, 0023]; a first electrode layer [121, Fig. 1, 0025] provided on the substrate [11, Fig. 1, 0023]; a photoelectric conversion layer [122, 123, and 124, Fig. 1, 0025] provided on the first substrate [11, Fig. 1, 0023] a second electrode layer provided on the substrate; and an extraction electrode layer provided on the substrate in a region that does not overlap with the photoelectric conversion layer when the substrate is observed in plan view, wherein at least a layer including a same material as that of the second electrode layer is provided between the substrate and the extraction electrode [see annotated figure, 0028, 14 can be made of aluminum, silver, gold, or calcium] 14 in the circles are the second electrode layer. 14 in the dotted square is the extraction electrode and does not overlap the photoelectric conversion layer in the plan view. The rectangle is the layer, which includes 14 and the additional layers in the rectangle portion, where a portion of the layers in the rectangle is located between the extraction electrode and the substrate from a side view (left to right), meeting the limitation of between the substrate and the extraction electrode. [AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval] PNG media_image1.png 261 583 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 8, Huang et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Huang et al. teaches wherein the photoelectric conversion layer comprises a light-absorbing layer, an electron transport layer, and a hole transport layer, and the light-absorbing layer contains a perovskite compound [0025 teaches a perovskite for light absorber, 0026 teaches the etl and htl] Regarding Claim 9, Huang et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Huang et al. teaches further comprising: a plurality of unit cells which are connected in series, wherein each unit cell comprises the photoelectric conversion layer, the first electrode layer, and the second electrode layer [0028, See annotated figure]. Regarding Claim 10, Huang et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Huang et al. teaches wherein the first electrode layer has optical transparency [0031]. Regarding Claim 11, Huang et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Huang et al. teaches wherein the extraction electrode layer is a metal layer [0025]. Regarding Claim 14, Huang et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Huang et al. teaches further comprising: a first scribe groove which divides the first electrode layer of the unit cell [see annotated figure] Examiner used circle to show first scribe, the dashed circle to show the second scribe, and the square shows the third scribe [AltContent: rect][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval] PNG media_image1.png 261 583 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 15, Huang et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Huang et al. teaches further comprising: a second scribe groove which divides the photoelectric conversion layer of the unit cell [see annotated figure]. Regarding Claim 16, Huang et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Huang et al. teaches further comprising: a third scribe groove which divides the photoelectric conversion layer and the second electrode layer of the unit cell, wherein the third scribe groove is filled with a conductive martial [see annotated figure, 0028]. Regarding Claim 17, Huang et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Huang et al. teaches further comprising: a sealing layer [13, Fig. 1, 0027], wherein the sealing layer covers side surfaces of the extraction electrode layer along a thickness direction [Fig. 1, 0027]. Regarding Claim 18, Huang et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Huang et al. teaches wherein the sealing layer covers a surface of the extraction electrode layer [Fig. 1, 0027]. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US Pub No. 2017/0194102) Regarding Claim 13, Huang et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, the limitation of “wherein on the substrate, the first electrode layer, the second electrode layer, and the extraction electrode layer are laminated in this order.” is considered a product by process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US Pub No. 2017/0194102) in view of Oguz (US Pub No. 2021/0408224) Regarding Claim 12, Huang et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Huang et al. is silent on wherein the extraction electrode layer comprises a first extraction electrode layer and a second extraction electrode layer, the first extraction electrode layer is electrically connected to the first electrode layer, and the second extraction electrode layer is electrically connected to the second electrode layer. Oguz et al. teaches the use of an electrode which is a bilayer [0060]. Since Huang et al. teaches the use of an extraction electrode, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the extraction electrode of Huang et al. with electrode bilayer of Oguz et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional electrode engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM. 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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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. /MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 25, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603284
MANUFACTURING METHOD OF ANODE ACTIVE MATERIAL AND SECONDARY BATTERY COMPRISING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603606
Photovoltaic module assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12568693
HIGH-EFFICIENCY SILICON HETEROJUNCTION SOLAR CELL AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12563856
LAMINATED PASSIVATION STRUCTURE OF SOLAR CELL AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12562682
HYBRID RECEIVER FOR CONCENTRATED PHOTOVOLTAIC-THERMAL POWER SYSTEMS, AND ASSOCIATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
56%
Grant Probability
84%
With Interview (+27.5%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 519 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month