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 1-6, 8-10 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/12/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 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.
Claim 1 recites “common wire”. It is unclear if the common wire is the same or different from the parallelly-connection conductive means in claims 4-6, 8 since in the specification, the common wire 160, 161 and 162 are used to interconnect between string of cell. For the purpose of examination, it is considered the common wire and parallelly-connection conductive means in claims 4-6, 8-9 are the same.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solarworld Innovations GMBH, DE202012004526 (herein after “GMBH”) (English translation attached) in view of Cattaneo et al., “Encapsulants Characterization for Novel Photovoltaic Module Design” (Both Documents cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, GMBH teaches a solar module (Fig.13-15) comprising a plurality of common solar cells (100), said solar cells arranged in a physical matrix of N columns and M rows, wherein the pair of neighboring rows of solar cells (100) is mechanically and electrically interconnected by wire field (231/232), the single polymer conductor stripe extended laterally over the pair of neighboring rows, across all of the N columns that extends over the N columns of said the pair of neighboring rows (see Fig.13-14). Also, a common wire 220 is between each pair of the neighboring rows of solar cells or solar sub-cells, and positioned above the respective single folded segment of conductor stripe.
PNG
media_image1.png
406
886
media_image1.png
Greyscale
GMBH does not specifically teach that said at least one pair of neighboring rows of solar cells is mechanically and electrically interconnected by a single wide polymer conductor stripe, being a ductile conductive wiring connection.
However, Cattaneo et al. teaches a wire bonding technology known as Smart Wire Connection Technology (SWCT) with the aim of transforming high-efficiency solar cells into reliable modules while minimizing cell-to-module loss and cost. Cattaneo teaches that the SWCT comprises around 15 to 38 copper-based wires, coated with a low melting-point alloy, used on both sides of the solar cell, wherein the wires are embedded in a polymeric foil that is applied directly onto the metallized cell. Cattaneo teaches that SWCT result in increased cell efficiency by reducing shading on the cell (see page 148, section 2.2). The whole polymeric foil is considered to be a single folded segment of a polymer conductor stripe.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select SWCT for the interconnection (231/232) of GMBH that extends over at least two adjacent columns of said at least one pair of neighboring rows in order to increase cell efficiency by reducing shading on the cell. Moreover, simple substitution of one known interconnection (wire fields 231/232 of GMBH) for another (SWCT of Cattaneo) to obtain predictable results supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2143). As for combination, single folded segment of a polymer conductor stripe comprising a width approximately of each pair of neighboring rows, the single folded segment of a polymer conductor stripe extended laterally over the pair of neighboring rows, across all of the N columns being a ductile conductive wiring connection that extends over two adjacent the N columns of said one the pair of neighboring rows. Since GMBH teaches the claimed stripe, the single folded segment of a polymer conductor stripe would be a ductile conductive wiring connection.
Regarding the limitation of “a solar power generation module for maximizing power generated from a solar module and for minimizing power degradation inflicted by light obstruction”, the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, therefore the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) MPEP 2111.02(II);
Regarding claim 2, modified GMBH teaches that at least one pair of neighboring cells in each column of solar cells electrically interconnected in series by at least one respective wire conductors (231/232) embedded inside said polymer conductor strip (Fig.13-15) (page 11 of English translation of GMBH).
Regarding claim 3, modified GMBH teaches that all solar cells in each pair of neighboring rows of a mutual string are electrically interconnected in series by at least one respective thin wire conductor (231/232) embedded inside said polymer conductor stripe (see Fig.13-15).
Regarding claim 4, modified GMBH teaches that wherein at least one solar cell in each string of solar cells is electrically interconnected in parallel to one or two solar cells situated in a mutual row of an adjacent string by a parallelly-connection conductive means (220; Fig.14-15).
Regarding claim 5, modified GMBH teaches that wherein said parallelly connection conductive means is an elongated common conductive wire (220) disposed between the rows of solar cells across all strings (page 9 of translation: wire or ribbon), across all strings (280; Fig.14), wherein said elongated common conductive wire 220 is conductively attached to the thin wire conductors (231/232) (See Fig.15) to locally form at least a partial conductive grid.
Regarding claim 8, modified GMBH teaches that the parallelly-connection conductive means comprise a plurality of short conductors (220; Fig.16), wherein each of short conductors mechanically interconnects adjacent solar cells (100) of adjacent strings (280), and wherein said short conductor 220 electrically interconnected in parallel said adjacent solar cells.
Regarding claim 9, the conductive wires 220 of modified GMBH are short common conductive wires.
Claim(s) 6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solarworld Innovations GMBH, DE202012004526 (herein after “GMBH”) (English translation attached) in view of Cattaneo et al., “Encapsulants Characterization for Novel Photovoltaic Module Design” (Both Documents cited in IDS) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Krajewski, U.S. Publication No. 2012/0138117 A1.
Regarding claim 6 and 10, modified GMBH teaches that the parallelly-connection conductive means (220; Fig.14) is a wire or ribbon that is disposed between the rows of said solar cells across all strings, wherein the wires 220 is conductively attached to the thin wire conductors (231/232) to locally form at least a partial conductive grid (see Fig.14 and 15).
Modified GMBH does not specifically teach that wires 220 is embedded inside a single polymer conductor.
However, Krajewski teaches a conducing wire (502; Fig.5A) to electrically connect adjacent solar cells, wherein the wire is embedded in on a conducting polymer (504). Krajewski teaches that the polymer coating provides mechanical support to the conductive wire network with respect to the surface of the photovoltaic cell during the processing method and the operation of the photovoltaic module [0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add a conducting polymer to the wire 220 of modified GMBH to provide mechanical support to the conductive wire network with respect to the surface of the photovoltaic cell during the processing method and the operation of the photovoltaic module [0005].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues in substance:
None of cited references the single folded segments of polymer conductor stripe.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. GMBH teaches the single fold segment of stripe (see drawing above). Cattaneo et al is only applied to teach the material of the stripe. Cattaneo et al is not applied to teach the single fold since GMBH already has this configuration. Thus, the cited references teach the claimed amendment.
None of cited references does not teach the common wire.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. GMBH in view of Cattaneo et al teach the claimed amendment.
Conclusion
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