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 amendments filed on 7/24/2026 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
Examiner withdraws all the rejections corresponding with claims 1-2, and 4-5 in the prior office action due to the amendments.
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 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. 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).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the arguments about claim 3, 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).
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Zehavi (US Pub No. 2016/0043257) and Thakkar (US Pub No. 2022/0344527) are the closest prior art.
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,
Thakkar et al. teaches a solar module which is curved and arranged on a vehicle [Fig. 1A, 0036].
Modified Zehavi et al. teaches limitations of the claims but does not disclose the limitations of “wherein the solar cell module has curvature that varies, and the strip width varies with the curvature such that the strip width increases as the curvature increases.”
These references, nor any other reference or combination of references in the prior art suggest or render obvious the limitations of “wherein the solar cell module has curvature that varies, and the strip width varies with the curvature such that the strip width increases as the curvature increases.” in conjunction with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Therefore; claims 1-2, and 4-6 are allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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