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 Group I, claims 1-13 and 20, in the reply filed on 04/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “extends into the sealing connection with the substrate” in claim 2, the limitation is interpreted in a manner consistent with the description of paragraph [0023] and the depiction of Fig. 3 of the as-field specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 2 and 3 of claim 2 recite “and extends into sealing connection with the substrate,” however, the recitation appears to contain a typographical error with regard to the phrase “extends into sealing connection.” For the purpose of this office action, the limitation will be interpreted as set forth above. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1 and 2 of claim 11 recite “wherein a material of the first current extraction structure is as same as a first electrode layer,” however, the phrase is as same as appears to be the result of a typographical error. Also, line 3 of claim 11 contains the phrase is as same as which appears to be the result of a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-13 are 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. Specifically, line 4 of claim 1 recites “the cell,” however, it is unclear which cell of the previously recited “at least one cell,” the limitation refers. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the cell.” For the purpose of this office action, the limitation will be treated as if it refers to the at least one cell. Claims 2-13 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1. Additionally, it is noted that claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, and 12 contain the limitation “the cell,” and further rejected for the reason set forth above.
Claims 10-12 are 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. Specifically, line 3 of claim 10 recites “one side of the substrate,” however, the relationship between this limitation and the previously recited “one side of the substrate” is unclear. The limitation of claim 10 is unclear as to whether the recited “one side of the substrate” is the one side of the substrate which is recited in claim 1, or is another side of the substrate. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 10.
Claims 10-12 are 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. Specifically, lines 3 through 5 recite “the first current extraction structure being electrically connected to a first electrode layer of at least one cell, and the second current extraction structure being electrically connected to a second electrode layer of at least one cell,” however, it is unclear if the first current extraction structure is electrically connected to the first electrode layer of the same cell of the at least one cell that the second current extraction structure is electrically connected to, or whether the first current extraction structure is electrically connected to the first electrode layer of one cell of the previously recited at least one cell, and the second current extraction structure is electrically connected to another cell of the previously recited at least one cell. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 10.
Claims 10-12 are 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. Specifically, lines 4 and 5 of claim 10 recite “at least one cell,” however, the relationship between this limitation and the previously recited “at least one cell” is unclear. The limitation of claim 10 is unclear as to whether the recited “at least one cell” is the at least one cell which is recited in claim 1, or at least one cell in addition to previously recited at least one cell. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 10.
Claims 10-12 are 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. Specifically, lines 5 and 6 of claim 10 recite “a first encapsulation layer is arranged around the side of the cell away from the substrate,” however, the relationship between the recited “first encapsulation layer” and the previously recited “encapsulation layer” of claim 1 is unclear. The limitation is ambiguous as to whether it is requiring the cell to have a first encapsulation layer in addition to the previously claimed encapsulation layer, or whether the claimed first encapsulation layer is part of a multi-layer encapsulation layer encompassed by the limitation “encapsulation layer” of claim 1. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 10.
Claim 20 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. Specifically, lines 5, 7, and 8 recite the limitation “the cell,” it is unclear which cell of the previously recited “at least one cell,” the limitation refers. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the cell.” For the purpose of this office action, the limitation will be treated as if it refers to the at least one cell.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shida et al. (WO 2019/230534 A1 – see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Shida discloses a cell module ([0092]; Fig. 6) comprising: a substrate (bottom layer of 14 in Fig. 6; [0222]); at least one cell located on one side of the substrate (7 in Fig. 6; [0222]); a cladding layer located on a side of the cell away from the substrate (second sealing layer disclosed in [0145]), an orthographic projection of the cladding layer on the substrate at least partially overlapping with an orthographic projection of the cell on the substrate (second sealing layer, provided on top of 9 in Fig. 6 ([0145])), in relation to 7 and bottom layer of 14 in Fig. 6); and an encapsulation layer located on the side of the cell away from the substrate and sealingly connected to the substrate (9 in relation to bottom layer of 14 in Fig. 6; [0222]).
With regard to the limitation “bend-resistant,” the limitation does not specify the amount of resistance required, therefore, any amount of resistance to bending satisfies the limitation. Additionally, it is noted that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 2, Shida discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Shida further discloses the cladding layer is arranged around the side of the cell away from the substrate and extends into sealing connection with the substrate (second sealing layer, provided on top of 9 in Fig. 6 ([0145]), in relation to bottom layer of 14 in Fig. 6).
With regard to the limitation “bend-resistant,” the limitation does not specify the amount of resistance required, therefore, any amount of resistance to bending satisfies the limitation. Additionally, it is noted that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 4, Shida discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Shida further discloses a material of the cladding layer comprises an Invar alloy ([0145] – second sealing layer).
With regard to the limitation “bend-resistant,” the limitation does not specify the amount of resistance required, therefore, any amount of resistance to bending satisfies the limitation. Additionally, it is noted that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 7, Shida discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Shida further discloses the cell comprises a first electrode layer (4 in Fig. 6; [0087]), an electron transport layer (6 in Fig. 6; [0087]), an active material layer (15 in Fig. 6; [0088]), a hole transport layer (5 in Fig. 6; [0087]) and a second electrode layer (8 in Fig. 6; [0087]) which are sequentially arranged in a stack in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (4, 6, 15, 5, and 8 in relation to the bottom layer of 14 in Fig. 6), wherein the first electrode layer is located on a side of the electron transport layer close to the substrate (4 in relation to 6 and the bottom layer of 14 in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 8, Shida discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Shida further discloses the active material comprises perovskite ([0088]).
Regarding claim 20, Shida discloses a solar cell system comprising a cell module ([0092]; Fig. 6) comprising: a substrate (bottom layer of 14 in Fig. 6; [0222]); at least one cell located on one side of the substrate (7 in Fig. 6; [0222]); a cladding layer located on a side of the cell away from the substrate (second sealing layer disclosed in [0145]), an orthographic projection of the cladding layer on the substrate at least partially overlapping with an orthographic projection of the cell on the substrate (second sealing layer, provided on top of 9 in Fig. 6 ([0145])), in relation to 7 and bottom layer of 14 in Fig. 6); and an encapsulation layer located on the side of the cell away from the substrate and sealingly connected to the substrate (9 in relation to bottom layer of 14 in Fig. 6; [0222]).
With regard to the limitation “bend-resistant,” the limitation does not specify the amount of resistance required, therefore, any amount of resistance to bending satisfies the limitation. Additionally, it is noted that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, Shida et al. (WO 2019/230534 A1 – see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Shida discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Shida further discloses the cladding layer has a thickness of 50 microns ([0145] discloses the second sealing layer has a thickness of about 5 to 50 microns).
It is noted that if the disclosed range of about 5 to 50 microns does not anticipate the claimed range of 50 to 1000 microns, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.).
With regard to the limitation “bend-resistant,” the limitation does not specify the amount of resistance required, therefore, any amount of resistance to bending satisfies the limitation. Additionally, it is noted that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 9, Shida discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Shida further discloses the encapsulation layer comprises a first encapsulation layer located between the cell and the cladding layer (9 in relation to 7 in Fig. 6 and in relation to the second sealing layer disclosed in [0145]); the first encapsulation layer comprises aluminum oxide ([0143]), and the first encapsulation layer has a thickness of 30 to 3000 nm ([0151]).
It is noted that if the disclosed range of 30 to 3000 nm microns does not anticipate the claimed range of 100 to 5000 nm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Additionally, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.).
With regard to the limitation “bend-resistant,” the limitation does not specify the amount of resistance required, therefore, any amount of resistance to bending satisfies the limitation. Additionally, it is noted that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shida et al. (WO 2019/230534 A1 – see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Rolled Alloys (see attached Invar 36 data sheet).
Regarding claim 5, Shida discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Shida does disclose an Invar alloy ([0145] – second sealing layer), Shida does not explicitly disclose the Invar alloy comprises a nickel content of 35-37 wt%, a carbon content of 0-0.05 wt%, a silicon content of 0.2 to 0.3 wt%, a copper content of 0.4-0.8 wt%, a manganese content of 0.2-0.6 wt%, and an iron content of 61.25-64 wt%.
Rolled Alloys discloses an Invar alloy with a nickel content of 35-37 wt%, a maximum carbon content of 0.1 wt%, a maximum silicon content of 0.35 wt%, a maximum copper content of 0.5%, a maximum manganese content of 0.6 wt%, and the balance being iron (page 1 of data sheet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the Invar alloy of Shida with the composition disclosed by Rolled Alloys, because as taught by Rolled Alloys, it maintains nearly constant dimensions over the range of normal atmospheric temperatures (lines 1 and 2 of page 1 of data sheet).
Additionally, as evidenced by Rolled Alloys, the use of an Invar alloy with the claimed composition amounts to the use of a known chemical composition for an Invar alloy, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the Invar alloy of Shida with the chemical composition disclosed by Rolled Alloys.
It is further noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 6, Shida discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Shida does disclose an Invar alloy ([0145] – second sealing layer), Shida does not explicitly disclose the Invar alloy comprises a nickel content of 36-37 wt%, a carbon content of 0.01-0.05 wt%, a silicon content of 0.25 to 0.3 wt%, a copper content of 0.5-0.8 wt%, a manganese content of 0.3-0.6 wt%, and an iron content of 61.25-62.94 wt%.
Rolled Alloys discloses an Invar alloy with a nickel content of 35-37 wt%, a maximum carbon content of 0.1 wt%, a maximum silicon content of 0.35 wt%, a maximum copper content of 0.5%, a maximum manganese content of 0.6 wt%, and the balance being iron (page 1 of data sheet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the Invar alloy of Shida with the composition disclosed by Rolled Alloys, because as taught by Rolled Alloys, it maintains nearly constant dimensions over the range of normal atmospheric temperatures (lines 1 and 2 of page 1 of data sheet).
Additionally, as evidenced by Rolled Alloys, the use of an Invar alloy with the claimed composition amounts to the use of a known chemical composition for an Invar alloy, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the Invar alloy of Shida with the chemical composition disclosed by Rolled Alloys.
It is further noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shida et al. (WO 2019/230534 A1 – see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of March et al. (US 2023/0119125).
Regarding claim 10, Shida discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Shida does not explicitly disclose the cell further comprises a first current extraction structure and a second current extraction structure, the first current extraction structure being electrically connected to a first electrode layer of at least one cell, and the second current extraction structure being electrically connected to a second electrode layer of at least one cell; and a first encapsulation layer is arranged around the side of the cell away from the substrate, and is sealingly connected to each of the first current extraction structure and the second current extraction structure.
March discloses a cell module (Fig. 6) and further discloses a first current extraction structure and a second current extraction structure (360 and 370 in Figure 6), the first current extraction structure being electrically connected to a first electrode layer of at least one cell (360 in relation to 310 in Fig. 6; [0032]), and the second current extraction structure being electrically connected to a second electrode layer of at least one cell (370 in relation to 270 in Fig. 6; [0032]); and a first encapsulation layer is arranged around the side of the cell away from the substrate (350 in Fig. 6), and is sealingly connected to each of the first current extraction structure and the second current extraction structure (350 in relation to 360 and 370 in Fig. 6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include first and second current extraction structures, as disclosed by March, on the first and second electrode layers of Shida, because as evidenced by March, the formation of first and second current extraction structures in a cell module amounts to the use of known components in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming first and second extraction structures on the first and second electrode layers of Shida based on the teaching of March.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a first encapsulation layer arranged around a side of the cell away from the substrate, as disclosed by March, sealing connected to each of the first and second current extraction structures of modified Shida, because as taught by March, the cells and contacts are encapsulated ([0033]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Shida discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Shida further disclose a material of the first current extraction structure is the same as a first electrode layer, and a material of the second current extraction structure is the same as a second electrode layer (March – 360 and 370 in relation 310 and 270, respectively, in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12, modified Shida discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Shida further discloses the cladding layer is arranged around the side of the cell away from the substrate, and is sealingly connected to the substrate (Shida - second sealing layer, provided on top of 9 in Fig. 6 ([0145]), in relation to bottom layer of 14).
With regard to the limitation “bend-resistant,” the limitation does not specify the amount of resistance required, therefore, any amount of resistance to bending satisfies the limitation. Additionally, it is noted that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shida et al. (WO 2019/230534 A1 – see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Zimmerman et al. (US 2011/0209755).
Regarding claim 13, Shida discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Shida further discloses the encapsulation layer further comprises a second encapsulation layer (10 in Fig. 6) located on a side of the cladding layer away from the substrate (10 in relation to second sealing layer on 9 ([0145]) and in relation to bottom layer of 14 in Fig. 6) and sealingly connected to the substrate (10 in relation to bottom layer of 14 in Fig. 6).
While Shida does disclose the second encapsulation layer is an adhesive layer ([0222] – layer 10), Shida not explicitly disclose the second encapsulation layer comprises a thermoplastic elastomer.
Zimmerman discloses an encapsulant layer for a photovoltaic device ([0015]) and further discloses the use of poly alpha olefin melt adhesives and thermoplastic elastomers as encapsulant materials ([0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the second encapsulation layer of Shida with a thermoplastic elastomer, as disclosed by Zimmerman, instead of an adhesive layer, because as evidenced by Zimmerman, the use of a thermoplastic elastomer for an encapsulant layer in a photovoltaic device amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the second encapsulation layer of Shida with a thermoplastic elastomer based on the teaching of Zimmerman.
With regard to the limitation “bend-resistant,” the limitation does not specify the amount of resistance required, therefore, any amount of resistance to bending satisfies the limitation. Additionally, it is noted that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights