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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 5/1/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/1/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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) 1-2, 4-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Frolov (US Pub No. 2010/0229923)
Regarding Claim 1, Frolov et al. teaches a photovoltaic power generation system [Fig. 12B, 0121, Fig. 13, 0127, Examiner is reading Fig. 13 applied in the 5x5 layout of Fig. 12A] comprising:
a first structure including a plurality of first photoelectric conversion bodies [See 1212 and 1206, Fig. 12A-12B, 0122]; and
a second structure including at least one second photoelectric conversion body [see 1214 and 1220, Fig. 2B, 0121],
wherein the first photoelectric conversion bodies each extend in a first direction as a
length direction of the first photoelectric conversion body;
a direction in which the first photoelectric conversion bodies are aligned is a
second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction [In Fig. 12A, from left to right is the first direction, and from top to bottom in figure 12A is the second direction]; and
when viewed from a third direction that is orthogonal to both the first direction and
the second direction, at least part of the at least one second photoelectric conversion
body is formed to overlap with at least part of the first photoelectric conversion bodies [Figure 13 shows an embodiment where the photoelectric bodies are overlapping, 0127, the third direction is the up and down direction in figure 13].
Regarding Claim 2, Frolov et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Frolov et al. teaches wherein the at least one second photoelectric conversion body is a plurality of second photoelectric conversion bodies, the second photoelectric conversion bodies each extend in the first direction as a
length direction of the second photoelectric conversion bodies, and
a direction in which the second photoelectric conversion bodies are aligned is the
second direction [Fig. 12A-12B, 0121-0122, and Fig. 13, 0127].
Regarding Claim 4, Frolov et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Frolov et al. teaches wherein the first structure has a first support frame [1508 and 1506, Fig. 15, 0139] supporting the first photoelectric conversion bodies [1504, Fig. 15, 0139].
Regarding Claim 5, Frolov et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Frolov et al. teaches comprising a third structure including a plurality of third photoelectric conversion bodies, wherein the third structure is located between the first structure and the second structure along the third direction [see annotated figure below]
When Figure 13 is applied in the diagram of figure 12A, the solid lines show the first structure and second structure, where the first structure is the top layer and the second structure is the bottom layer. The circle shows the third structure where a portion is at least between the first and second structure.
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
476
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Frolov et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Frolov et al. teaches wherein the first structure includes a first substrate made of glass or resin [0045, plastic foils], and the first substrate is located between the second structure and the first photoelectric conversion bodies along the third direction [Fig. 15, 0138].
Regarding Claim 8, Frolov et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Frolov et al. teaches wherein the first photoelectric conversion bodies are electrically connected in series [0186].
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) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frolov (US Pub No. 2010/0229923)
Regarding Claim 3, Frolov et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Frolov et al. teaches wherein the first structure includes a first substrate [1508, Fig. 15, 0139], supporting the first photoelectric conversion bodies [1504, Fig. 15, 0139], and silent on when viewed from the third direction, the first photoelectric conversion bodies are disposed in a region having an area larger than 50% of an area of the first substrate.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the photoelectric generation system , with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the photoelectric generation system are changed, the precise parameters of the photoelectric generation system would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “when viewed from the third direction, the first photoelectric conversion bodies are disposed in a region having an area larger than 50% of an area of the first substrate.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the photoelectric generation system to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 7, Frolov et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Frolov et al. is silent on wherein a dimension of the first photoelectric conversion body in the second direction is larger than 50% of a pitch at which the first photoelectric conversion bodies are aligned in the second direction.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the photoelectric generation system , with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the photoelectric generation system are changed, the precise parameters of the photoelectric generation system would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a dimension of the first photoelectric conversion body in the second direction is larger than 50% of a pitch at which the first photoelectric conversion bodies are aligned in the second direction.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the photoelectric generation system to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frolov (US Pub No. 2010/0229923) in view of Kim (US Pub No. 2021/0175450)
Regarding Claim 9, Frolov et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Frolov et al. is silent on wherein the first photoelectric conversion bodies include a perovskite compound.
Kim et al. teaches the use of a perovskite solar cell [Abstract].
Since Frolov et al. teaches the use of photoelectric conversion bodies, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention modify the first photoelectric conversion bodies of Frolov et al. with the perovskite solar cells of Kim et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional 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.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Frolov (US Pub No. 2010/0229923) and Kim (US Pub No. 2021/0175450) are the closest prior art.
Modified Frolov et al. teaches limitations of the claims but does not disclose the limitations of “comprising: a control device; a first DC/DC converter; and a power storage device, wherein the first photoelectric conversion bodies, the first DC/DC converter, and the power storage device are electrically connected in this order, and when a ratio of an output voltage from the first DC/DC converter to the power storage device to an input voltage from the first photoelectric conversion bodies to the first DC/DC converter is defined as a first transformation ratio, the control device controls the first transformation ratio such that the output voltage tracks a target value.” in claim 10, “comprising a guide, wherein the guide, engaging with at least one of the first structure and the second structure, allows the at least one of the first structure and the second structure to move in the first direction wherein the second structure includes at least one second photoelectric conversion body and a second support frame supporting the at least one second photoelectric conversion body, and the second support frame includes: a pair of frame members extending in the first direction, and a frame connector connecting the pair of frame members, where when a move of the second structure in the first direction relative to the first structure is defined as a relative move, the relative move achieves a state in which at least one of the first photoelectric conversion bodies overlaps with the frame connector when viewed from the third direction, and when an average value of a light transmittance in a wavelength range of 400 nm or more and 800 nm or less is defined as a specific light transmittance, the specific light transmittance of the frame connector in the third direction is higher than the specific light transmittance of the pair of frame members in the third direction.” in claim 11, and “wherein the second structure includes at least one second photoelectric conversion body and a second support frame supporting the at least one second photoelectric conversion body, and the second support frame includes: a pair of frame members extending in the first direction, and a frame connector connecting the pair of frame members, where when a move of the second structure in the first direction relative to the first structure is defined as a relative move, the relative move achieves a state in which at least one of the first photoelectric conversion bodies overlaps with the frame connector when viewed from the third direction, and when an average value of a light transmittance in a wavelength range of 400 nm or more and 800 nm or less is defined as a specific light transmittance, the specific light transmittance of the frame connector in the third direction is higher than the specific light transmittance of the pair of frame members in the third direction.” in claim 12.
These references, nor any other reference or combination of references in the prior art suggest or render obvious the limitations of “comprising: a control device; a first DC/DC converter; and a power storage device, wherein the first photoelectric conversion bodies, the first DC/DC converter, and the power storage device are electrically connected in this order, and when a ratio of an output voltage from the first DC/DC converter to the power storage device to an input voltage from the first photoelectric conversion bodies to the first DC/DC converter is defined as a first transformation ratio, the control device controls the first transformation ratio such that the output voltage tracks a target value.” in claim 10, “comprising a guide, wherein the guide, engaging with at least one of the first structure and the second structure, allows the at least one of the first structure and the second structure to move in the first direction wherein the second structure includes at least one second photoelectric conversion body and a second support frame supporting the at least one second photoelectric conversion body, and the second support frame includes: a pair of frame members extending in the first direction, and a frame connector connecting the pair of frame members, where when a move of the second structure in the first direction relative to the first structure is defined as a relative move, the relative move achieves a state in which at least one of the first photoelectric conversion bodies overlaps with the frame connector when viewed from the third direction, and when an average value of a light transmittance in a wavelength range of 400 nm or more and 800 nm or less is defined as a specific light transmittance, the specific light transmittance of the frame connector in the third direction is higher than the specific light transmittance of the pair of frame members in the third direction.” in claim 11, and “wherein the second structure includes at least one second photoelectric conversion body and a second support frame supporting the at least one second photoelectric conversion body, and the second support frame includes: a pair of frame members extending in the first direction, and a frame connector connecting the pair of frame members, where when a move of the second structure in the first direction relative to the first structure is defined as a relative move, the relative move achieves a state in which at least one of the first photoelectric conversion bodies overlaps with the frame connector when viewed from the third direction, and when an average value of a light transmittance in a wavelength range of 400 nm or more and 800 nm or less is defined as a specific light transmittance, the specific light transmittance of the frame connector in the third direction is higher than the specific light transmittance of the pair of frame members in the third direction.” in claim 12 in conjunction with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Therefore; claim 1 is allowed once the limitations of claims 10-12 are incorporated into claim 1.
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
Prosecution Insights