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 July 30th, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The 112(b) rejections of claims 19-20 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections over Hebrink et al. ‘466 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s persuasive arguments.
New rejections follow.
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
Regarding Claim 19, Applicant recites the word, “(co)polymer”. Its unclear if Applicant’s intent is that this layer is a copolymer, or a polymer. Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 11-14, 17-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan et al. (US 2009/0151784 A1) in view of Hebrink et al. (WO 2021/137125 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Luan et al. discloses a structured ultraviolet shield article (Fig. 3) comprising:
a microstructured film comprising a first major surface and an opposing major surface, wherein the first major surface comprises a plurality of microstructures projecting therefrom , wherein at least some of the plurality of microstructures each has a surface whose slope causes light that is normally incident to the first major surface of the microstructure film to intercept the first major surface of the surface of the at lest one other microstructure after reflection (See Annotated Luan et al. Fig. 3, below & Paragraph 0007);
Annotated Luan et al. Fig. 3
PNG
media_image1.png
484
857
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a multilayer optical film disposed on the plurality of microstructures, wherein the multilayer optical film is comprised of one or more alternating first and second inorganic optical layers that collectively reflect and absorb ultraviolet light that is normally incident to the first major surface of the microstructure film (Fig. 3, #313/#314 – Paragraph 0036-0043).
Luan et al. does not explicitly disclose that the first and second inorganic optical layers are reflecting and absorbing light that is normally incident to the first major surface of the microstructured film, an average of at least 50, 60, 70, 80, or 95 percent of incident ultraviolet light over at least a 30 nanometer wavelength reflection bandwidth in a wavelength range from 190 to 400 nm.
Hebrink et al. discloses first and second optical layers are reflecting and absorbing light that is normally incident to the first major surface of the microstructured film, an average of at least 50, 60, 70, 80, or 95 percent of incident ultraviolet light over at least a 30 nanometer wavelength reflection bandwidth in a wavelength range from 180 to 280 nm (Paragraph 0045). Hebrink et al. discloses that the first and second optical layers can comprise inorganic material (Paragraph 0067-0070 & 0132-0136). Hebrink et al. discloses that this ultraviolet light shielding film is applied to a major surface of a photovoltaic device (Paragraph 0070 & 00112). Hebrink discloses that this configuration of first and second optical layers are especially useful for extending the life of photovoltaic modules (Paragraph 0003).
In view of Claim 3, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Luan et al. teaches at least some of the microstructures comprise at least one angled sidewall that has a peak that comes to a point (See Annotated Luan et al. Fig. 3, above).
In view of Claim 5, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Luan et al. teaches at least some of the microstructures have a shape with a triangular cross-section (See Annotated Luan et al. Fig. 3, above).
In view of Claim 6, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Luan et al. teaches that the microstructures have a shape of a pyramid (Paragraph 0054).
In view of Claim 11, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hebrink et al. teaches that the first and second optical layers independently have a thickness of 20-400 nm (Paragraph 00133).
In view of Claim 12, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hebrink et al. teaches that the alternating first and second inorganic optical layers collectively transmit light that is normally incident to the first major surface of the microstructure film an average of at least 50 percent of incident visible light in a wavelength range from greater than 400 nm to 700 nm (Fig. 8).
In view of Claim 13, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hebrink et al. teaches that the first optical layer comprises titanium oxide (Paragraph 0069) and the second optical layer comprises silicon aluminum oxide (Paragraph 0067).
In view of Claim 14, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hebrink et al. teaches that the first optical layer comprises titanium oxide (Paragraph 0069) and the second optical layer comprises silicon aluminum oxide (Paragraph 0067).
In view of Claim 16, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hebrink et al. teaches at least one of the first optical layers nearest to the exterior of the film or nearest to the microstructures has a thickness of at most 80% of the other first optical layers (Paragraph 00133).
In view of Claim 17, Luna et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hebrink et al. teaches that the multilayer optical film is formed of at least 1 first optical layer and 2 second optical layers (Fig. 1 & Paragraph 0042)
In view of Claim 18, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hebrink et al. teaches that the alternating first and second inorganic optical layers collectively transmit light that is normally incident to the first major surface of the microstructure film an average of at least 50 percent of incident visible light in a wavelength range from greater than 400 nm to 700 nm (Fig. 8).
In view of Claim 20, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hebrink et al. teaches exhibiting an average transmission of wavelengths between 400-700 nm (Fig. 8) through the article that is reduced by less than 1% after exposure to a dose of ultraviolet light of at least 425 megajoules per square meter cumulative irradiance from a point within 250-385 nm (Paragraph 0093, 00113 – do not have an increase in UV-C light absorption).
In view of Claim 21, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Luan et al. teaches the solar array (Fig. 3) comprising the structured ultraviolet light shield article (Fig. 3, #313/#314) disposed on an exterior surface of the solar array (Fig. 3 disposed on top surface of the solar cell).
Claims 2, 4, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan et al. (US 2009/0151784 A1) in view of Hebrink et al. (WO 2021/137125 A1) in view of Abbott et al. (US 2009/0325336 A1).
In view of Claim 2, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Luan et al. does not disclose the plurality of microstructures have an aspect ratio of height to width of no more than 10:1, 8:1, 6:1, 4:1, 2:1, or 1:1.
Abbott et al. discloses a plurality of microstructures with an aspect ratio of no more than 1:1 (Fig. 3A & Paragraph 0047-0050). Abbott et al. teaches that this type of surface texture configuration for a solar cell can enable a conformal coating (Paragraph 0010). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the microstructures of Luan et al. have an aspect ratio of no more than 1:1 for the advantages of enabling a conformal coating on the surface of the textured area.
In view of Claim 4, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Luan et al. does not disclose that at least some of the microstructures comprise at least one angled sidewall having a peak angle of 90 degrees or less.
Abbott et al. teaches microstructures that comprise at least one angled sidewall having a peak angle of 90 degrees or less (Fig. 3A & Paragraph 0047-0050). Abbott et al. teaches that this type of surface texture configuration for a solar cell can enable a conformal coating (Paragraph 0010). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the microstructures that comprise at least one angled sidewall having a peak angle of 90 degrees or less for the advantages of enabling a conformal coating on the surface of the textured area.
In view of Claim 9, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Luan et al. does not disclose that at least some of the microstructures comprise a height of 0.5-500 micrometers.
Abbott et al. teaches microstructures that comprises a height of 0.5-10 microns (Paragraph 0052). Abbott et al. teaches that this type of surface texture configuration for a solar cell can enable a conformal coating (Paragraph 0010). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the microstructures comprises a height of 0.5-10 microns for the advantages of enabling a conformal coating on the surface of the textured area.
In view of Claim 10, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Luan et al. does not teach the peak angle is 5, 15, 25, 35 or 45 degrees or greater.
Abbott et al. teaches a microstructure with a peak angle that is 5 degrees or greater (Fig. 3A & Paragraph 0047-0050). Abbott et al. teaches that this type of surface texture configuration for a solar cell can enable a conformal coating (Paragraph 0010). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the microstructures with a peak angle that is 5 degrees or greater for the advantages of enabling a conformal coating on the surface of the textured area.
Claims 2, 4, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan et al. (US 2009/0151784 A1) in view of Hebrink et al. (WO 2021/137125 A1) in view of Xu et al. “A new uniformity coefficient parameter for the quantitative characterization of a textured wafer surface and its relationship with the photovoltaic conversion efficiency of monocrystalline silicon cells”
In view of Claim 2, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Luan et al. does not disclose the plurality of microstructures have an aspect ratio of height to width of no more than 10:1, 8:1, 6:1, 4:1, 2:1, or 1:1.
Xu et al. teaches that ideal uniform textures are supposed to full of equally sized consecutive pyramid units (Page 211, Section 2.2, 1st Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the plurality of pyramidal microstructures of Luan et al. have an aspect ratio of no more than 1:1 for the advantages of being in an ideal configuration.
In view of Claim 4, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Luan et al. does not disclose that at least some of the microstructures comprise at least one angled sidewall having a peak angle of 90 degrees or less.
Xu et al. teaches a microstructure with an angled sidewall having a peak less than 90 degrees (Fig. 1a, section 2.1). Xu et al. teaches that this configuration of a pyramidal texture is purely advantageous and can effectively reduce reflection loss of light (Section 3.4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the microstructure with an angled sidewall having a peak less than 90 degrees for the advantages of having a purely advantageous microstructure configuration that effectively reduces the reflection loss of light.
In view of Claim 7, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Luan et al. does not disclose the plurality of microstructures have an aspect ratio of height to width of no more than 10:1, 8:1, 6:1, 4:1, 2:1, or 1:1.
Xu et al. teaches that ideal uniform textures are supposed to full of equally sized consecutive pyramid units (Page 211, Section 2.2, 1st Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the plurality of pyramidal microstructures of Luan et al. have the same size and shape for the advantages of being in an ideal configuration.
In view of Claim 9, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Luan et al. does not disclose that at least some of the microstructures comprise a height of 0.5-500 micrometers.
Xu et al. teaches microstructures with a height greater than 0.5 microns and less than 500 microns (Fig. 7). Xu et al. teaches that this configuration of a pyramidal texture is purely advantageous and can effectively reduce reflection loss of light (Section 3.4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have microstructures with a height greater than 0.5 microns and less than 500 microns for the advantages of having a purely advantageous microstructure configuration that effectively reduces the reflection loss of light.
In view of Claim 10, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Luan et al. does not teach the peak angle is 5, 15, 25, 35 or 45 degrees or greater.
Xu et al. teaches a peak angle greater than 5 degrees (Fig. 1a, section 2.1). Xu et al. teaches that this configuration of a pyramidal texture is purely advantageous and can effectively reduce reflection loss of light (Section 3.4). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a peak angle greater than 5 degrees for the advantages of having a purely advantageous microstructure configuration that effectively reduces the reflection loss of light.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan et al. (US 2009/0151784 A1) in view of Hebrink et al. (WO 2021/137125 A1) in view of Wang et al. “Scalable Production of Mechanically Robot Antireflection Film for Omnidirectional Enhanced Flexible Thin Film Solar Cells”.
In view of Claim 8, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Luan et al. does not disclose that the microstructured film is flexible.
Wang et al. discloses that a microstructured film can be may flexible and that results in a broadband and omnidirectional enhanced performance (Fig. 1a, Abstract). Wang et al. discloses that this type of configuration can result in an anti-reflection layer with improved hydrophobic properties that can be easily integrated with flexible or rigid solar cells (Conclusion). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the microstructured film of Luan et al. be based on the flexible microstructured film of Wang et al. for the advantage of utilizing an anti-reflection layer with improved hydrophobic properties.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan et al. (US 2009/0151784 A1) in view of Hebrink et al. (WO 2021/137125 A1) in view of Anderson et al. (US 2001/0031365 A1).
In view of Claim 15, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Luan et al. teaches that the outermost optical layer is a second optical layer that has a thickness of at least 70 nm.
Anderson et al. discloses an outermost optical layer that can be considered a second optical layer (uses analogous material as modified Luan) with a thickness of at least 70 nm (Paragraph 0045). Anderson et al. teaches that this outermost layer has better durability and chemical durability (Paragraph 0040). Accordingly, it would have been obvious that the outermost second layer of modified Luan et al. that comprises silicon aluminum oxide by at least 70 nm for the advantage of having an outermost layer with better durability and chemical durability.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luan et al. (US 2009/0151784 A1) in view of Hebrink et al. (WO 2021/137125 A1) in view of Klun et al. (US 2015/0221797 A1).
In view of Claim 19, Luan et al. and Hebrink et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Luan et al. does not disclose a barrier coating disposed between the plurality of microstructures and the multilayer optical film, the barrier coating comprising at least one dyad comprised of a copolymer layer overlaying the first major surface of the microstructured film and an inorganic layer overlaying the copolymer layer, and an outer copolymer layer overlaying the at least one dyad.
Klun et al. discloses a barrier coating disposed on a major surface of a substrate, the barrier coating comprising at least one dyad comprised of a copolymer overlaying the first major surface of the substrate (Fig. 1, #14), an inorganic layer overlaying the copolymer layer (Fig. 1, #16), and an outer copolymer layer overlaying the at least one dyad (Fig. 1, #18 – Paragraph 0048-0050). Klun et al. discloses that the copolymer overlaying the first major surface of the substrate can follow the surface topography of the substrate (Paragraph 0069). Klun et al. discloses that this type of barrier coating included in a PV device can improve the adhesion and moisture barrier performance of a multilayer composite barrier film (Paragraph 0043). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the barrier coating of Klun et al. disposed directly on the top surface of Luan et al. plurality of microstructures and between the multilayer optical film for the advantages of improving the adhesion and moisture barrier performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds for rejection being used in the current rejection.
ConclusionAny inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST.
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 T 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights