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 7/10/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The previous art rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New analysis follows.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “a perimeter of the photoelectric conversion layer is positioned inside a perimeter of the electrode layer in a plan view”. This language is not explicitly recited in the disclosure as originally filed. The examiner interprets the new limitation to find support in the cross-sectional view of instant Figure 2 (also in Figures 3-5), as well as certain passages of the specification. Instant Figure 2 explicitly shows that electrodes 11 and 12 extend to the end of base material 2 in the X direction. Paragraph [0014] of the instant specification recites “perimeters of the first electrode layer 11 and the second electrode layer overlap with a perimeter of the base material 2.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11, 14, and 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “the solar battery cell includes a laminated structure that includes a photoelectric conversion layer, and the electrode layer,”, and further recites “the extraction electrode layer is disposed in an area not overlapping with the solar battery cell in the plan view”. As the electrode is specifically identified as part of the solar battery cell, this logically requires the extraction electrode layer to not overlap with the electrode layer. There is not support for this amendment in the disclosure as originally filed. Paragraph [0014] of the instant specification recites “the perimeters of the first electrode layer 11 and the second electrode layer 12 overlap with a perimeter of the base material 2. In other words, the first electrode 11 and the second electrode layer 12 are formed across the entire surface of the base material except parts in which grooves 16 and 17, which will be described below, are formed.” Paragraph [0016] recites “The extraction electrode layer 20 is formed in areas not overlapping with the photoelectric conversion layer 10 in plan view of the solar cell module 1.” Finally, paragraph [0047] recites “The colored layer 40 is formed on the entire area except the parts in which the extraction electrode layer 20 is formed on the back surface of the second electrode layer 12.” While the plane view of instant Figure 1 shows extraction electrodes 20, 20A as being formed over other elements of the module, the other cross-sectional views such as instant Figure 2 do not suggest that either electrode layer 11, 12 is not formed coincident with the extraction electrode layer. Therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand Applicant to have had possession of the claimed invention as of the effective filing date.
Claims 2-11, 14, and 16-20 are also rejected based on their dependence from claim 1.
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 1-11, 14, and 16-20 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.
As noted in the rejection over 112(a) above, the disclosure as originally filed does not support “the solar battery cell includes a laminated structure that includes a photoelectric conversion layer, and the electrode layer,” and “the extraction electrode layer is disposed in an area not overlapping with the solar battery cell in the plan view”. A skilled artisan would also not find claims 1-11, 14, and 16-20 to be clear, as the instant disclosure does not elucidate how to form the extraction electrode layer to not overlap the electrode layer.
Claim 20 recites “the first electrode layer” and “the second electrode layer”, which lack antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4, 6, 8, 14, 15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,294,722 to Kondo.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 19, and 20, Kondo teaches a solar cell module (Fig. 5) comprising
A base material 11 (Fig. 4, C7/L27-29)
An electrode layer 12 disposed over the base material 11 (C7/L30-32)
A solar battery cell (surrounded by black box in Marked-up Fig. 4 below) disposed over the base material 11
A colored layer 16 (C9/L1-8)
A sealing layer 17 that covers the solar battery cell
An extraction electrode layer 18 (C8/L65-C9/L1)
The solar battery cell includes a laminated structure that includes a photoelectric conversion layer 13 (C7/L52-60), and the electrode layer 12 (C7/L36-40)
A perimeter of the photoelectric conversion layer 13 is positioned inside a perimeter of the electrode layer 12 in a plan view (C7/L49-51)
The extraction electrode layer 18 is disposed in an area not overlapping with the solar battery cell in the plan view (the plan view of Fig. 5 does not detail the extraction electrode layer 18, but a skilled artisan would understand that the electrode layer 18 is offset from the solar battery cell by gap 14c), the extraction electrode layer being configured to extract electric energy from the solar battery cell to an outside of the solar cell module
The colored 16 layer disposed in an area not overlapping with the photoelectric conversion layer and the extraction electrode layer 18 in the plan view (layer 17 overlaps the perimeter of the base material 11, layers 13 and 18 are offset from the perimeter).
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
224
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 4, a perimeter of the first electrode layer 12 overlaps with a perimeter of the base material 11 in the plan view (Ibid.).
Per claim 6, the colored layer 16 has insulation in an embodiment (C11/L29-38).
Per claims 8 and 19, in an interpretation, the electrode layer includes a first electrode layer 12 disposed on a first surface of the photoelectric conversion layer 13, and a second electrode layer 14 disposed on a second surface of the photoelectric conversion layer (C8/L17-25).
The colored layer 16 is disposed between the second electrode layer 14 and the sealing layer 17 (Fig. 4).
Per claim 20, the extraction electrode layer 18 includes a first extraction electrode electrically connected to the electrode layer which is a first electrode layer 12 (shown in Fig. 4; a layer 18 corresponds to an area 14c shown in Fig. 5) and a second extraction electrode 18 electrically connected to a second electrode layer (C8/L47-54; Fig. 4 does not explicitly show a layer 18 connected to the opposite area 14c, but the text is clear that a second extraction electrode 18 is connected to each of the two regions 14c), the first extraction electrode and the second extraction electrode being on opposite ends of the base material 11 (left and right ends of Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, this rejection relies upon a different interpretation of Kondo than relied upon above. Kondo teaches a solar cell module (Fig. 5) comprising
A base material 11 (Fig. 4, C7/L27-29)
An electrode layer 12/14 disposed over the base material 11 (C7/L36-39, C8/L17-34)
A solar battery cell (surrounded by black box in Marked-up Fig. 4 above) disposed over the base material 11
A colored layer 16 (C9/L1-8)
A sealing layer 17 that covers the solar battery cell
An extraction electrode layer 18 (C8/L65-C9/L1)
The solar battery cell includes a laminated structure that includes a photoelectric conversion layer 13 (C7/L52-60), and the electrode layer 12/14
A perimeter of the photoelectric conversion layer 13 is positioned inside a perimeter of the electrode layer 12/14 in a plan view (Fig. 4, C7/L49-51)
The extraction electrode layer 18 is disposed in an area not overlapping with the solar battery cell in the plan view (the plan view of Fig. 5 does not detail the extraction electrode layer 18, but a skilled artisan would understand that the electrode layer 18 is offset from the solar battery cell by gap 14c), the extraction electrode layer being configured to extract electric energy from the solar battery cell to an outside of the solar cell module
The colored 16 layer disposed in an area not overlapping with the photoelectric conversion layer and the extraction electrode layer 18 in the plan view (layer 17 overlaps the perimeter of the base material 11, layers 13 and 18 are offset from the perimeter).
The electrode layer 12/14 includes a first electrode layer 14 disposed on a first surface of the photoelectric conversion layer 13, and a second electrode layer 12 disposed on a second surface of the photoelectric conversion layer (Fig. 4).
A perimeter of the second electrode layer 12 overlaps with a perimeter of the base material 11 in plan view.
Regarding claim 15, Kondo teaches a method for producing a solar cell module (Fig. 5), the method comprising
Forming a first electrode layer 12 over the base material 11 (C6/L51-56, C7/L25-35)
Forming a photoelectric conversion layer 13 over the first electrode layer 12 formed over the base material 11 such that a perimeter of the photoelectric conversion layer is positioned inside a perimeter of the base material in a plan view (C7/L49-60)
Forming an extraction electrode layer 18 in an area not overlapping with the photoelectric conversion layer in the plan view (C8/L65-C9/L1; the plan view of Fig. 5 does not detail the extraction electrode layer 18, but a skilled artisan would understand that the electrode layer 18 is offset from the photoelectric conversion layer 13 by gap 14c in Fig. 4)
Forming a sealing layer 16 (C9/L1-8).
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) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Kondo teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kondo teaches that the colored layer 16 may be formed so that the module has a color tone harmonious with a building (C2/L15-29), specifically a dark color such as black, brown, or red (C4/L35-41, C9/L4-8). A person having ordinary skill in the art would therefore understand the colored layer to either absorb or reflect wavelengths of visible light, which would be understood to include wavelengths between 380 nm and 780 nm. 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 vary the degree of absorption or reflection at those wavelengths in order to produce the desired color tone.
“[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.).
The claimed absolute and relative absorption rates are therefore obvious results of optimization.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US 2017/0162812 to Aoki II.
Regarding claim 5, Kondo teaches the limitations of claim 19. Kondo does not teach that the colored layer entirely covers the second electrode layer in the plan view except in an area in which the extraction electrode layer is disposed. Aoki 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 remove layers similar to Kondo’s colored layer and sealing layer (34, 36 of Fig. 19) in an area where an extraction electrode layer (2(+)) is disposed that the power from the solar cell module can be accessed (¶0080-0086, 0131(i)-(i-2)).
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aoki II.
Regarding claims 16-19, Kondo teaches the limitations of claim 1. In an interpretation, the solar battery cell includes a plurality of unit cells (equivalent to the entities in the black box in Marked-up Fig. 4 above) that are arranged in a first (left-right of Figs. 4, 5) direction and connected in series (C8/L65-C9/L1, C12/L31-37).
The solar battery cell includes grooves 14c, 12b, 13b, 14c formed by removing a part of the laminated structure constituting the solar battery cell, the grooves being extended in the first direction (each groove has a width, C7/L36-48, C8/L8-16, C8/L36-49).
The extraction electrode layer 18 is disposed very close to an end of the base material 11 in a first direction (left-right in Fig. 4 of Kondo). While Kondo does not explicitly teach that the extraction electrode layer is disposed at an end of the base material in the first direction, 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 do so as an alternative to forming the extraction electrode very close to the end of the base material (compare Figs. 19, 21 of Aoki II, ¶0131(i)-(i-2)). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0069767 to Kim.
Regarding claim 7, Kondo teaches the limitations of claim 1. The thickness of the photoelectric conversion layer is 100 nm to 10 micrometers in thickness (C10/L18-19). Kondo teaches that the colored layer is a resin with a protection function (C9/L1-4), but does not teach a thickness. Kim teaches that a similar resin layer may comprise a distinct colored sub-layer that is between 500 nm and 50 micrometers in thickness (¶0043, 0045, 0090-0096). 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 resin layer with a protection function of Kondo to have a distinct colored layer because it provides a similar combination of functions. 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.).
A range can be disclosed in multiple prior art references instead of in a single prior art reference depending on the specific facts of the case. Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004). MPEP §2144.05.I. Since the combination of references teaches overlapping ranges of thicknesses of the photoelectric conversion layer and the colored layer, a relative configuration recited in claim 7 is obvious.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0200320 to Martorell Peña.
Regarding claim 11, Kondo teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kondo teaches a photoelectric conversion layer 13 that contains amorphous silicon (Ibid.). Martorell Peña 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 the photoelectric conversion layer to contain a perovskite compound, as it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art-recognized purpose (¶0018). 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 and 14-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights