CTNF 19/325,082 CTNF 91968 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 2 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 2, the limitation of “a sealing material” is unclear if it is the same or different than “a sealing material” in claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Zehavi (US Pub No. 2016/0043257) Regarding Claim 1 , Zehavi et al. teaches a solar cell module [Fig. 3 and Fig 4A, 0033, 0030] comprising: a solar cell unit including at least one solar cell [Fig. 4A, 0030]; and a front surface plate [110, Fig. 1, 0026] and a back surface plate [130, 135, 140, Fig. 1, 0006, 0025] that are disposed, via a sealing material [110-1 to 110-4 and 140-1 to 140-4, Fig. 2, 0026], on a light-receiving surface side and an opposite side of the light-receiving surface side of the solar cell unit [Fig. 2, 0010], wherein a woven metal plate [145, Fig. 6, woven metal, 0022, 0006] is provided on the back surface plate, The limitation “the woven metal plate being formed by weaving metal strips having a predetermined strip width.” corresponds with the formation of the woven metal plate and is considered a product by process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product, meeting all the structural limitations of the claim. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). Regarding Claim 2 , Zehavi et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Zehavi et al. teaches wherein the back surface plate is configured such that an insulating layer [130, Fig. 1, 0006] and a resin layer [140, Fig. 1, 0031, 0021] are joined via a sealing material [135, Fig. 1, 0025] on a side of the solar cell unit and an opposite side of the side of the solar cell unit of the woven metal plate [Fig. 1] . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zehavi (US Pub No. 2016/0043257) Regarding Claim 3 , Zehavi et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Zehavi et al. is silent on wherein the strip width or a crossing angle of the strips is set based on a curvature of a mounting site of the solar cell module. As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the solar module , with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the solar module are changed, the precise parameters of the solar module 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 the strip width or a crossing angle of the strips is set based on a curvature of a mounting site of the solar cell module.” 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 solar module 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) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zehavi (US Pub No. 2016/0043257) in view of Thakkar (US Pub No. 2022/0344527) Regarding Claim 4 , Zehavi et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Zehavi et al. is silent on wherein the solar cell module has a curved shape. Thakkar et al. teaches a solar module which is curved and arranged on a vehicle [Fig. 1A, 0036]. Since Zehavi et al. teaches the use of a solar module, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the solar module of Zehavi et al. to be curved and arranged on a vehicle as taught by Thakkar 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.). Regarding Claim 5 , Zehavi et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Zehavi et al. is silent on wherein the solar cell module is mounted on a vehicle. Thakkar et al. teaches a solar module which is curved and arranged on a vehicle [Fig. 1A, 0036]. Since Zehavi et al. teaches the use of a solar module, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the solar module of Zehavi et al. to be curved and arranged on a vehicle as taught by Thakkar 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.). 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 Application/Control Number: 19/325,082 Page 2 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 19/325,082 Page 3 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 19/325,082 Page 4 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 19/325,082 Page 5 Art Unit: 1728 Application/Control Number: 19/325,082 Page 6 Art Unit: 1728
Prosecution Insights