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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/26/2025. These drawings are unacceptable.
It is noted that newly included Figure 8 has a reference number 80 that is not defined in the instant specification or the amended specification.
Additionally, it is unclear how Figure 8 resolves the previously mentioned drawing objection, where the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “directly injecting the encapsulant material between the solar cell string and the front plate glass and on the solar cell string” in claim 5, where claim 1 already recited the solar cell string to be arranged on the front plate prior to injecting an encapsulant material must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are 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 the limitations "the glass glaze", “the back plate glass” and “the front plate glass”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim because no glass glaze, front plate glass, or back plate glass are recited in claim 1. It is noted that the claimed subject matter was previously presented in claim 18, which depended from claim 17, which depended from claim 16, which depended from claim 9, which depended from claim 5, which depended from claim 3, which depended from claim 2, such that claim 18 required all the claim limitations recited in those claims and cannot merely be incorporated into claim 1 as is.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a reserved hole being opened in the back plate” in line 2. However, claim 1 from which claim 2 depends upon already recites the limitation, such that it is unclear if the same or different reserved hole in the back plate is being referenced. Clarification is requested.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the injecting an encapsulant material”. However, claim 1 from which claim 4 depends upon already recites “injecting an encapsulant material”, such that it is unclear if the same or different encapsulant material is being injected. Clarification is requested.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “after injecting the encapsulant material and before curing the encapsulant material…directly injecting the encapsulant material between the solar cell string and the front plate glass and on the solar cell string”. Claim 1 from which claim 5 depends upon recites “arranging the solar cell string on the front plate…injecting an encapsulant material”, such that it is unclear how the encapsulant material is injected between the solar cell string and the front plate glass when the solar cell string is arranged on the front plate without anything else being disclosed to suspend the solar cell string away from the front plate glass in order for the encapsulant material to be injected between the solar cell string and the front plate glass as recited. Clarification is requested.
The term “normal” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 6 recites “detecting…to ensure the plurality of solar cells and a circuit connected to the plurality of solar cells being normal.” The instant specification has only stated in paragraph [0071] “performing EL detection, to ensure the battery and the circuit have no problems”, where neither the claim nor the instant specification provides a definition for what is considered to be “normal” or “have no problems”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “aligning and fixing the back plate, the front plate, and the solar cell string” in line 9. It is unclear what is encompassed by the “fixing” in the limitation without further information. It is not immediately clear if “fixing” is intended to reference fixing the alignment of the back plate, front plate, and solar cell string relative to one another or some other “fixing” without further details being provided. Clarification is required in order to understand the metes and bounds of the limitation. Similar deficiency can be found in claim 8.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the providing the solar cell string comprises…to form a plurality of strings of solar cells”. It is unclear how the method of providing the solar cell string forms a plurality of strings of solar cells. Clarification is requested.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues new Figure 8 shows that the solar cell string is arranged on the front plate 3a and the encapsulant material is disposed between the solar cell string 8 and the front plate 3a, showing the feature “directly injecting the packing material between the solar cell string and the front plate glass and on the solar cell string.” However, it is unclear how new Figure 8 shows the feature at all because nothing is being shown to be injected and it does not explain how the encapsulant material can be injected between the solar cell string and the front plate glass when the solar cell string was already disclosed to be arranged on the front plate in claim 1.
It is noted that the instant specification has only disclosed in an example in paragraph [0064] “(7) Injecting liquid silicone through the reserved hole 16 in the back plate to
ensure that the liquid silicone completely covers the solar cell string without any wires or solar cells exposed”, such that it appears the act of “injecting the encapsulant material” is disclosed to be in the back plate glass and not between the solar cell string and the front plate glass as claimed.
The drawing objection for previously presented claim 18 has been withdrawn in view of new Figure 9 and the drawing objections for claims 12 and 13 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims 12 and 13.
Applicant argues with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 5, the bus bars disposed between the solar cell string and the front plate glass would provide a clearance for the encapsulant material to flow into the gap according to example 1. However, looking at example 1, the instant specification has only disclosed in paragraph [0059] that “(2) Carrying out positioning and arranging according to a circuit design; welding in series and in parallel using busbars, to form a circuit portion of the module, that is, the solar cell string electrically connected” and in paragraph [0064] that “(7) Injecting liquid silicone through the reserved hole 16 in the back plate to ensure that the liquid silicone completely covers the solar cell string without any wires or solar cells exposed”, such that it is clear that the encapsulant material is injected from the back of the solar cell string and does not disclose specifically injecting the encapsulant material between the solar cell string and the front plate glass as claimed. The feature was only disclosed in paragraph [0039], but in the same paragraph, it is disclosed to be after injecting an encapsulant material and before curing the encapsulant material, such that the statements conflict with each other. The instant specification does not state the busbar is in the front of the solar cell string, where back contact solar cells exist with busbars only on the back surface that can still be connected in series/parallel. Therefore, the mere statement there are busbars does not mean they must be on the front surface of the solar cell string.
Additionally, it is noted that example 3 states in paragraphs [0084] and [0085] “(4) Laying the front plate 3c, carrying out positioning and arranging on the front plate 3c according to a circuit design; welding in series and in parallel using busbars, to form a circuit portion of the module; and performing EL detection, to ensure the battery and the circuit have no problems; (5) Injecting liquid silicone in the front plate 3c, to ensure that the liquid silicone
completely covers the solar cell string without any wires or solar cells exposed”, but the specification still does not explain how exactly the encapsulant material is injected between the solar cell string and the front plate glass such that “the liquid silicone completely covers the solar cell string without any wires or solar cells exposed” if the busbars provide a gap.
Applicant states that the other 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been addressed. However, numerous issues remain as well as new issues have been introduced, as set forth above in the Office Action.
Therefore, the arguments were not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li (CN 101345267; see English machine translation) discloses a solar panel comprising an inner peripheral sealant (3) and an outer peripheral sealant (4) and a lead out hole (9) in the rear cover (see Figure 1).
Lee et al. (KR 2018-0025681; see English machine translation) discloses a solar panel comprising an inner peripheral sealant (40) and an outer peripheral sealant (70) and a frame (50) (see Figures 2 and 3a).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722