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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-14, 16-17 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/27/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance. This action is made final.
Status of Rejections Pending
since The Office Action of 95/29/2025
All the rejections are maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 9, 11-14, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (PG Pub 20180138343) and further in view of Kim et al (PG Pub 20160093752) or alternatively Shiotsuka et al (Pat No. 6121542).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al teaches a photovoltaic module comprising
a plurality of photovoltaic cells 150, each of the plurality of photovoltaic cells comprising a cell body (see body formed by layers of cells) including a semiconductor body (10) (with a photosensitive region for photogeneration of charge carriers in response to absorption of impinging electromagnetic radiation (semiconductor body includes layers of semiconductor material to generate photocurrent in response to absorbed light) [fig 5 para 26-28]; wherein
- continuous electrically conductive front side surface layer (420,423), the continuous electrically conductive front side surface layer is arranged on the semiconductor body and forms a front surface of the cell body, wherein the continuous electrically conductive front side surface layer is transparent for the impinging electromagnetic radiation used for the photogeneration of the charge carriers [fig 3 5 para 31]
- the cell body includes a continuous electrically conductive back side surface layer 440, 443) wherein the electrically conductive back side surface layer is arranged on the semiconductor body and forms a back surface of the cell body [fig.3 5 para 31]
- a plurality of electrically conductive wires 142 directly connects the plurality of photovoltaic cells electrically [fig 3 5 para 26-27]
- the plurality of electrically conductive wires that directly electrically connect the plurality of photovoltaic cells have a convex outer surface in directions perpendicular to their respective longitudinal wire extension [fig 5] and include a metal core 142a [para 35] and an electrically conductive and adhesive (the coating and adhesive material) 142b [fig 5 para 35]. Additionally, Fig. 5 is also interpreted to read on the claimed “electrically conductive and adhesive wire coat”) that is directly attached and in immediate electrical contact to the electrically conductive front side surface layer or the electrically conductive backside surface layer of a given cell body by means of an electrically conductive adhesive bond (conductive adhesive (para 35)).
-the electrically conductive adhesive bond between the plurality of electrically conductive wires 142a and the electrically conductive front side surface layer or the electrically conductive backside surface layer of the cell body extends continuously across the front surface or the back surface of the cell body from a first edge to an opposite second edge of the cell body so as to allow the plurality of electrically conductive wires [fig 3 5 para 35]
Modified Lee et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Lee et al does not teach the electrically conductive adhesive comprise synthetic resin as claimed.
Kim et al teaches a solar cell having wiring 142 with core 142a and adhesive (142b+conductive adhesive material) where adhesive 142b is made of synthetic resin [para 90].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the conductive adhesive of Lee et al to be the same material of Kim et al for improving bonding and enhancing in output power [par 93].
Or alternatively:
Shiotsuka et al teaches a solar cell comprising a metal wire with core 205 and conductive adhesive layer 206 where the conductive adhesive layer 206 is made of polymer resin (conductive adhesive section)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the conductive adhesive of Lee et al to be the same material of Shiotsuka et al for excelling in heat resistance and workability, and has flexibility (conductive adhesive section).
The Examiner notes the limitations wherein a plurality of electrically conductive wires are “configured for providing a voltage to an external electrical load in operation of the PM" is a recitation of intended use and/or functional language. The limitation is afforded patentable weight to the extent which structure is definitely defined and clearly set forth; as written, the limitation does not further structurally limit the claimed invention beyond the recited configuration of the plurality of electrically conductive wires. The limitations will be considered met so long as the device of the prior art meets all structural limitations and is capable of the intended use and/or function stated by Applicant. As Kim et al teaches all positively recited structural limitations, including the direct connection of the conductive wires to the plurality of photovoltaic cells and the structure of the wires themselves, including the metal core and conductive adhesive wire coat that is bonded via a conductive adhesive bond to the photovoltaic cells (see above), there exist no apparent differences between the claimed invention and that of the prior art, and thus the device of Kim et al is capable of the use of providing voltage to an external load as recited in the instant claims, absent a showing to the contrary.
The recitation “to collect photogenerated charge carriers directly at the front surface or the back surface at any point along an extension of the electrically conductive adhesive bond” is functional language which imparts intended use to the structural features of the product. Therefore, while the claim language has been considered with regard to structure, the intended use language it is not given patentable weight because it is directed to a process and not directed to the structural features of the product. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2111. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee et al teaches the continuous electrically conductive front side surface layer being included anti-reflective film as set forth above (the conductive front side surface is made of transparent conductive material)
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee et al teaches the electrically conductive back side surface layer is made of transparent conductive layer and being textured [fig 5 para 31]. Thus, the electrically conductive back side surface layer is anti-reflective and trans-parent for those spectral components of the impinging electromagnetic radiation that are used for the photogeneration of the charge carriers.
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee et al teaches the plurality of photovoltaic cells are electrically connected via the plurality of electrically conductive wires to form a series connection of the plurality of photovoltaic cells for providing the voltage to the external electrical load . The Examiner notes the limitations wherein the series connection is “for providing the voltage to the external electrical load" is a recitation of intended use and/or functional language. The limitation is afforded patentable weight to the extent which structure is definitely defined and clearly set forth; as written, the limitation does not further structurally limit the claimed invention beyond the structure and configuration recited in the claim. The limitations will be considered met so long as the device of the prior art meets all structural limitations and is capable of the intended use and/or function stated by Applicant. Accordingly, modified Lee et al teaches the series connection, and the photovoltaic module is capable of being connected to an external electrical load to output the voltage of the string, absent a showing to the contrary.
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee et al teaches a front set of the plurality of electrically conductive wires runs on the front surface of the cell body of a given cell, of the plurality of photovoltaic cells, and is extended to the back surface of the cell body of a cell, of the plurality of photovoltaic cells, that is next in the series connection [fig 5]
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee et al further teaches the metal core of the plurality of electrically conductive wires 142a is made Ni [para 35, lee et al].
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee et al further teaches the electrically conductive and adhesive wire coat 142b is formed by a single layer of an electrically conductive adhesive material [fig 5].
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee et al teaches the electrically conductive and adhesive wire coat comprises an inner coat layer 142b contacting the metal core and an outer coat layer (adhesive layer) enclosing the inner coat layer and forming the electrically conductive adhesive bond to the cell body [para 35, Lee et al].
Regarding claim 13, modified lee et al teach the cell body being crystalline silicon body [para 46, Lee et al]
Regarding claim 14, modified Lee et al teaches the passivation layer film (52,54) arranged directly on a surface of the semiconductor body [fig 5 para 45].
Regarding claim 16, modified Lee et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Lee does not teach the thickness of the conductive adhesive as claimed.
Kim et al teach the conductive adhesive 142b having thickness T1 of 7-21micron which is overlapped the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the thickness of the conductive adhesive to be the same of Kim et al since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, since modified Lee et al teaches the claimed material in claim 1, the material of the conductive adhesive is considered to have the same properties as recited in claim 17. It is noted that "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (PG Pub 20180138343) and Kim et al (PG Pub 20160093752) or alternatively Shiotsuka et al (Pat No. 6121542) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lüdemann et al. (US 6,423,567 B1; hereinafter “Lüdemann”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee et al teaches the PM of claim 1, the limitations of which are set forth above. While modified Lee et al teaches a plurality of electrically conductive wires across the surface, modified Lee et al is silent to the cells comprising 10 to 40 wires per 0.1 meter, counted in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal extension of the plurality of electrically conductive wires.
Lüdemann teaches photovoltaic cells (solar cells; abstract). Lüdemann teaches that solar cells include a grid contact on the front, or light-facing, side, and that it is a known issue to balance the shading of the grid contact on the light-incident surface with the resistance of smaller and fewer grid electrodes. Lüdemann teaches with less shading comes more light to the cell, but this must be balanced with ensuring the transport of current with little resistance. To balance the two, the sizing and numbering of the grid electrodes must be selected to not be too large and not be too small, respectively, establishing the aforementioned variables as known result effective variables which affect the amount of shading and the resistance of the grid electrodes in solar cells (col. 1, lines 51-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of modified Lee et al by modifying the number of wires per decimeter (0.1 m) in order to determine the optimal number of grid electrodes/wires which minimizes shading and resistance of the electrodes, as taught above by Lüdemann, and arrive upon the claimed range of 10 to 40 wires per 0.1 meter, counted in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal extension of the wires. The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[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). See also MPEP §2144.05.
Claim 5, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (PG Pub 20180138343) and Kim et al (PG Pub 20160093752) or alternatively Shiotsuka et al (Pat No. 6121542) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Beernink et al. (US 2004/0035458 A1; hereinafter “Beernink”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Lee et al does not teach the electrically conductive back side surface layer being made of a metal that is resistant to oxidation.
Beernink teaches a solar module comprising the electrically conductive back side surface layer being made of a metal that is resistant to oxidation (substrate electrode 22 can be made of metals such as stainless steel, i.e. resistant to oxidation; ¶¶0006 and 0030).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of continuous back side electrical conductive layer to be made of the same material of Beernink for resistant to oxidation.
Regarding claim 10, modifiedLee et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Lee et al does not teach the metal core being covered by a non-corrosive layer.
Beernink teaches the metal core is covered by a non-corrosive layer (see coatings 46, 48, which are non-corrosive layers as claimed; Fig. 3 and ¶0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cover the metal core of modified Lee et al by the non-corrosive layer (46.48) of Beernink for non-corrosive [para 32].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant arguments in substance:
Lee does not teach the adhesive layer.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee teaches the coating or solder layer 142 being directly bonded to the front electrode. Also, Lee in view of Kim teaches the wiring having coating being an adhesive layer which has the same material as claimed. Thus, Lee in view of Kim teaches the claimed adhesive layer.
Lee's adhesive attachment variant is location-limited to pad 424, not continuous across the cell surface.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Lee teaches wiring 142 having solder 142b and the electrically conductive front side surface layer or the electrically conductive backside surface layer of the cell body extends continuously across the front surface or the back surface of the cell body from a first edge to an opposite second edge of the cell body so as to allow the plurality of electrically conductive wires [fig 3]. Second, the wiring 142 being directly bonded to front electrode [fig 9] and the wiring 142 bonded to the pad 424 is just another option or example and it is not applied in the rejection.
Kim does not teach the claimed adhesive.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Kim explicitly teaches the wiring 142 having coating (142b+conductive adhesive material [par 90]) being used as the conductive adhesive and this coating has the same material as claimed. Also, Kim teaches the method how the adhesive is bonded to the electrode by heat and it will not change the final product. Moreover, Kim is only applied to teach the material of the adhesive layer.
Shiotsuka does not teach the claimed adhesive and does not teach continuous conductive wire laid across the power generating surface
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Shiotsuka explicitly teaches the wiring having coating being used as the conductive adhesive and this coating has the same material as claimed. Also, Shiotsuka is only applied to teach the material of the claimed adhesive layer which is used in photovoltaic field, not being applied to teach continuous conductive wire laid across the power generating surface
Combining lee and Shiotsuka would not be predictable functioning modification of Lee.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee teaches the claimed limitation, Shiotsuka is only applied to teach the material of the claimed adhesive layer which is used in photovoltaic field. Thus, Lee in view of Shiotsuka teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above.
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 UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 5712721307. 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726