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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected patentably distinct method invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 05/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that: The inventions encompass overlapping subject matter encompassing a single inventive concept and as such there would not be a burdensome search if all of the claimed species were examined together.
This argument is not found persuasive because the different groups are directed to entirely different statutory classes (the elected invention is an apparatus, and the non-elected invention is a method), which are functionally distinct by their very nature. Further, the inventions have been expressly shown to have distinct features, despite any overlap in some of the subject matter. Further, a proper search of the prior art requires review of thousands of prior art references while searching for numerous features of the invention. To search for the additionally noted features of the non-elected method would significantly increase the burden of time for the search to be performed. Thus this argument is not compelling and the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use generic placeholders that are coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholders are not preceded by any structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a solar cell transportation apparatus configured to transport the solar cell” (claim 1, line 3); “a wire transportation apparatus configured to transport the wire” (claim 1, line 4); “a wire jig transportation apparatus configured to transport a wire jig that is configured to support the wire” (claim 1, lines 5-6); “an alignment apparatus configured to mount thereon the solar cell transported by the solar cell transportation apparatus, and correct a position of the solar cell” (claim 1, lines 7-8); “a delivering apparatus configured to support the solar cell mounted on the alignment apparatus and having the corrected position and the wire jig transported by the wire jig transportation apparatus, and mount the solar cell and the wire jig on the wire on the wire transportation apparatus” (claim 1, lines 9-12); “a plurality of displacement devices including a first displacement device movable in a direction of an X-axis, a second displacement device movable in a direction of a Y-axis, and a third displacement device rotatable with respect to a Z-axis” (claim 2, lines 2-4); “a first movement structure connected to the main body to be movable in a first direction” (claim 6, lines 5-6); and “a second movement structure connected to the main body to be movable in a second direction which is different from the first direction” (claim 6, lines 7-8).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The claim limitation(s) has/have been presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it/they meet(s) the following 3-prong analysis:
(A) The claim limitation(s) use the phrase “means for” or “step for” or a generic replacement therefore: The word (or phrase) “apparatus configured to” and “device” and “structure” are generic nonce terms which impart no structure to the words which they purportedly modify. The claims would have no more or less weight and meaning if they instead disclosed “a solar cell transportation means for transporting the solar cell”; “a wire transportation means for transporting the wire”; “a wire jig transportation means for transporting a wire jig that is configured to support the wire”; “an alignment means for mounting thereon the solar cell transported by the solar cell transportation apparatus, and correcting a position of the solar cell”; “a delivering means for supporting the solar cell mounted on the alignment apparatus and having the corrected position and the wire jig transported by the wire jig transportation apparatus, and mounting the solar cell and the wire jig on the wire on the wire transportation apparatus”; “a plurality of displacement means including a first displacement means for moving in a direction of an X-axis, a second displacement means for moving in a direction of a Y-axis, and a third displacement means for rotating with respect to a Z-axis”; “a first movement means connected to the main body, the first movement means for moving in a first direction”; and “a second movement means connected to the main body, the second movement means for moving in a second direction which is different from the first direction”.
(B) The “means for” or “step for” is modified by functional language: In fact, each of the “means for” is modified only by functional language. For examples: “to transport”, “to mount… and correct a position”, “to support… and mount”, “movable in a direction”, “rotatable”, and “to be movable”.
(C) The phrase “means for” or “step for” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function. In this instance, the terms “a solar cell transportation apparatus”, “a wire transportation apparatus”, “a wire jig transportation apparatus”, “an alignment apparatus”, “a delivering apparatus”, “a plurality of displacement devices including a first displacement device… a second displacement device… and a third displacement device”, “a first movement structure”, and “a second movement structure” provide literally no indication whatsoever as to what structure(s) would be provided in order to achieve the claimed functional language. None of these terms even carry implicit structure. The remaining cited language is entirely functional in nature and contains no structural descriptions at all.
NOTE: the instant original disclosure is very broad with respect to purportedly defining the above noted means-plus-function limitations. The “solar cell transportation apparatus” is apparently nothing more than a “conveyor” (par. 0059). The “wire transportation apparatus” is entirely open-ended in its description, which includes the vague hedging term “may”, whereby it “may include a conveyor 41, a roller 43, and an aligner 45” (par. 0061), which means it also may not include any of these. Instant fig. 3 shows the wire transportation apparatus (40) as nothing more than a rectangle, which is apparently incapable of moving based upon par. [0096] of the specification which discloses “the wire transportation apparatus 40, which is fixed or has a fixed position”. The wire jig transportation apparatus can be as simple as a “conveyor” (par. 0067) or “may include a transportation rail 71, a support frame 72, and a stopper 73” (par. 0068), and “may further include a position identification sensor 74” (par. 0072). There appears to be very little criticality to any of the claimed structures, or their organization or their functionality based upon the fact that the hedging term “may” precedes all of these purported limitations in the specification 477 times.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 discloses “a delivering apparatus configured to support the solar cell mounted on the alignment apparatus and having the corrected position and the wire jig transported by the wire jig transportation apparatus, and mount the solar cell and the wire jig on the wire on the wire transportation apparatus” (lines 9-12; emphasis added). The extreme run-on nature of this section of the claim renders it nearly impossible to understand or confidently interpret. It is not at all clear whether the delivering apparatus or the solar cell is the element “having the corrected position”. It is impossible to know whether the delivering apparatus, or the solar cell or the alignment apparatus is intended to be the element “having…the wire jig”. The reader is left to guess which structure is intended to be capable of “mount[ing] the solar cell and the wire jig on the wire on the wire transportation apparatus”. The phrase “on the wire on the wire transportation apparatus” is confusing and awkward. Further, the Applicant is respectfully reminded that the claims are not at all directed to a method of using the claimed apparatus and that the claims should be written in a manner in which it is clear that a method is not additionally being recited.
It is true that “A claim to a device, apparatus, manufacture, or composition of matter may contain a reference to the process in which it is intended to be used without being objectionable under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, so long as it is clear that the claim is directed to the product and not the process” (MPEP 2173.05 (p)). However, in claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9, it quite clear that a method of using the apparatus is being claimed in addition to the broad and vague recitations of the apparatus which provide almost no structural information. As such, the claims are indefinite, as “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph” (MPEP 2173.05(p)). The claims should be amended to define the apparatus in an understandable manner without relying on disclosing the method steps of using the apparatus. If there are structures required in the apparatus, then they should be claimed.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of their dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 4 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “after the delivering apparatus simultaneously supports the solar cell, the position of which is corrected by the alignment apparatus, and the wire jig, the delivering apparatus is configured to move to the wire transportation apparatus and simultaneously mount the solar cell and the wire jig on the wire” (lines 1-4; emphasis added). This claim is rejected for the same reason as claim 1. The instant invention is statutorily directed to an apparatus and not to a method of using the apparatus. Please claim the structures of the apparatus rather than the steps of using it. It is quite ambiguous as to whether this claim actually defines or modifies the structures of the claimed apparatus at all, as no structures are being modified and no additional structures are disclosed. Further, the “after” language is very problematic, because it is conditional and leaves the reader to guess what may or may not occur “before” or “during”, which means that the claim does not further define the apparatus in any manner under those conditions. Is the delivering apparatus not configured to move, or capable of movement, to the wire transportation apparatus before or during the purported instance of the delivering apparatus simultaneously supporting the solar cell? What happens in those instances? Further still, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation wherein the “apparatus simultaneously supports” anything. Even if such a limitation were previously recited, the claims are not directed to a method. As such, the alignment apparatus does not actually correct the position of any element or structure, because the claims are not directed to a method. Moreover, the phrase “the position of which is corrected by the alignment apparatus, and the wire jig,” is confusing, because there is nothing previously disclosed in the claims wherein the wire jig is capable of any type of position correction. Accordingly, it is not clear if a limitation was omitted or if this instance of “and the wire jig,” should be deleted.
Claim 5 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “the wire jig transportation apparatus comprises a stopper at an end thereof adjacent to the alignment apparatus” (lines 1-2; emphasis added). The italicized language is confusing and awkward. Is the “end thereof” the end of the stopper of the end of the transportation apparatus? The claim does not answer this question and is thus found to be ambiguous, such that the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained.
Claim 6 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “a first support structure and a second support structure each integrally moving with the second movement structure and respectively supporting the wire jig and the solar cell at a same time,” (lines 9-11; emphasis added). The claim should not recite the method steps of using the apparatus. This claim is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 7-10 are also further rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of their dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 6.
Claim 8 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “after the cell-jig transportation apparatus simultaneously supports the solar cell mounted on the alignment apparatus and the wire jig transported by the wire jig transportation apparatus, the cell-jig transportation apparatus is configured to move along with the delivering apparatus, and mount the solar cell and the wire jig on the wire mounted on the wire transportation apparatus” (lines1-5; emphasis added). The claim is not directed to a method and should not claim the steps of using the apparatus, because in this instance the method of using the apparatus does not further define any of the structural elements of the claimed apparatus, and does not disclose any additional structures. Thus the claim is not understood to further limit the apparatus of claim 6. Further the conditional language is ambiguous and confusing. This claim is indefinite for the same reasons as both claim 1 and claim 4.
Claim 9 is further rejected as indefinite, because the claim discloses “the cell-jig transportation apparatus is provided in plural to be integrally movable through the delivering apparatus, and, wherein after each of the plurality of cell-jig transportation apparatuses simultaneously supports the solar cell and the wire jig” (lines 1-4; emphasis added). This claim is indefinite for the same reasons as claims 1 and 4. It is not properly directed to a method, and the conditional language is indefinite. Further, a single “transportation apparatus” cannot be “provided in plural”. This language is confusing and awkward. It seems likely that the prior recitation of the “cell-jig transportation apparatus” (in claim 6) should instead be disclosed as “one or more cell-jig transportation apparatuses”.
Claim 10 is also further rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of its dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 9.
NOTE: All of the examined claims (i.e., claims 1-10) have been interpreted and examined as best understood according to the 112(b) rejections, above.
Examination of the Claims Under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
The currently presented and examined claims 1-10 are drawn to an apparatus and not to a method. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett- Packard Co. V. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2114). Functional limitations are typically followed by a linking term “for”, “configured to/for”, “performing”, “carry out”, “to execute”, “capable of”, etc. and these phrases concern operation of the apparatus. In fact, nearly every single purported “structure” of the claims is disclosed with respect to what it is intended to do, rather than the actual structures of the apparatus. For examples: “tabbing apparatus for forming a solar cell module by connecting a solar cell with a wire”, “solar cell transportation apparatus configured to transport the solar cell”, “wire transportation apparatus configured to transport the wire”, “wire jig transportation apparatus configured to transport a wire jig that is configured to support the wire”, “alignment apparatus configured to mount thereon the solar cell transported by the solar cell transportation apparatus, and correct a position of the solar cell”, and “delivering apparatus configured to support the solar cell mounted on the alignment apparatus and having the corrected position and the wire jig transported by the wire jig transportation apparatus, and mount the solar cell and the wire jig on the wire on the wire transportation apparatus” (all from claim 1); “first displacement device movable in a direction of an X-axis”, “second displacement device movable in a direction of a Y-axis”, and “third displacement device rotatable with respect to a Z-axis” (claim 2); “position identification sensor configured to identify the position of the solar cell mounted on the alignment apparatus”, “controller is configured to correct the position of the solar cell, by controlling the alignment apparatus based on the position of the solar cell identified by the position identification sensor and a pre-stored reference value, and wherein the controller is configured to control the alignment apparatus based on one or more of position information about the wire transportation apparatus and position information about the wire jig transportation apparatus as the reference value” (claim 3); “the delivering apparatus is configured to move to the wire transportation apparatus and simultaneously mount the solar cell and the wire jig on the wire” (claim 4); “the delivering apparatus is configured to simultaneously support the solar cell mounted on the alignment apparatus and the wire jig contacting the stopper” (claim 5); “first movement structure connected to the main body to be movable in a first direction”, “second movement structure connected to the main body to be movable in a second direction” (claim 6); “the cell-jig transportation apparatus is configured to move along with the delivering apparatus, and mount the solar cell and the wire jig on the wire mounted on the wire transportation apparatus” (claim 8); and “each of the plurality of cell-jig transportation apparatuses is configured to simultaneously mount the solar cell and the wire jig on the wire” (claim 9).
All of the above noted claim limitations are functional limitations which do not appear to structurally contribute to the definition of the apparatus. Examiner further notes that, "inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." (see MPEP 2115). A recitation with respect to the material intended to be worked upon by a claimed apparatus does not impose any structural limitations upon the claimed apparatus. In this case, “a solar cell module”, “a solar cell” “a wire”, “the wire”, “the solar cell”, “a wire jig”, and “the wire jig” are workpiece materials which do not understandably define the apparatus of the claims in any structural manner.
The Applicant is strongly encouraged to determine what the claimed apparatus is, in addition to the indications of what the apparatus does, and to amend the claims to structurally define the apparatus in an understandable manner, rather than leaving the reader to subjectively define (or guess) the vast majority of the purported structures of the apparatus with very little structural language provided in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chikaki (US 8,052,036 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Chikaki discloses a tabbing apparatus (“tab lead soldering apparatus”, 1) for forming a solar cell module by connecting a solar cell with a wire (Title; Abstract; fig. 3: all; col.3, lines 65-67), the tabbing apparatus comprising: a solar cell transportation apparatus (26, and/or 35) configured to transport the solar cell (figs. 3-4; col. 4, lines 13-30; col. 5, lines 12-23); a wire transportation apparatus (40A, 40B, 41A, and 41B) configured to transport the wire (fig. 3; col. 5, lines 38-67); a wire jig transportation apparatus (60, 65, 77, and 81) configured to transport a wire jig (55, 56, 75, and 76) that is configured to support the wire (figs. 6-7; cols. 6-7, lines 44-67 and 1-47; cols. 7-8, lines 64-67 and 1-64); an alignment apparatus (5 and/or {51A, 51B, 52A and 52B} and/or {86A, 86B and 88}) configured to mount thereon the solar cell transported by the solar cell transportation apparatus, and correct a position of the solar cell (fig. 3-4; col. 4, lines 2-12 and 45-49; cols. 9-10, lines 33-67 and 1-25); and a delivering apparatus (3, 4, 10, 12, 15) configured to support the solar cell mounted on the alignment apparatus and having the corrected position and the wire jig transported by the wire jig transportation apparatus, and mount the solar cell and the wire jig on the wire on the wire transportation apparatus (fig. 3, 5, and 7-8; col. 4, lines 7-10; col. 5, lines 12-41; col. 6, lines 26-43).
Regarding claim 2, Chikaki discloses the tabbing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the alignment apparatus comprises a plurality of displacement devices including a first displacement device (86A) movable in a direction of an X-axis, a second displacement device (86B) movable in a direction of a Y-axis, and a third displacement device (88) rotatable with respect to a Z-axis (fig. 3, 5, and 7-8; cols. 9-10, lines 33-67 and 1-25).
Regarding claim 4, Chikaki discloses the tabbing apparatus of claim 1, wherein, after the delivering apparatus simultaneously supports the solar cell, the position of which is corrected by the alignment apparatus, and the wire jig, the delivering apparatus is configured to (capable of) move to the wire transportation apparatus and simultaneously mount the solar cell and the wire jig on the wire (fig. 3, 5, and 7-8; col. 4, lines 7-10; col. 5, lines 12-41; col. 6, lines 26-43).
Regarding claim 5, Chikaki discloses the tabbing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the wire jig transportation apparatus comprises a stopper (61) at an end thereof adjacent to the alignment apparatus, the stopper contacting the wire jig, and wherein the delivering apparatus is configured to simultaneously support the solar cell mounted on the alignment apparatus and the wire jig contacting the stopper (figs. 3 and 6-8; col. 7, lines 7-47; cols. 9-10, lines 33-67 and 1-25).
Claims 1 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 10,741,716 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a tabbing apparatus (1) for forming a solar cell module by connecting a solar cell with a wire (Title; Abstract; fig. 1; col. 5, lines 30-33), the tabbing apparatus comprising: a solar cell transportation apparatus (200) configured to transport the solar cell; a wire transportation apparatus (100) configured to transport the wire (fig. 1; col. 5, lines 40-52); a wire jig transportation apparatus (110) configured to transport a wire jig ({111, 113 and 115} and/or {171, 173, 175 and 177}) that is configured to support the wire (figs. 2-3 and 7; cols. 5-6, lines 64-67 and 1-37; col. 8, lines 6-40); an alignment apparatus (310) configured to mount thereon the solar cell transported by the solar cell transportation apparatus, and correct a position of the solar cell (fig. 8; col. 7, lines 43-48; cols. 9-10, lines 54-67 and 1-22); and a delivering apparatus (130, 210, 230, 300, and/or 350) configured to support the solar cell mounted on the alignment apparatus and having the corrected position and the wire jig transported by the wire jig transportation apparatus, and mount the solar cell and the wire jig on the wire on the wire transportation apparatus (figs. 8-13C; col. 7, lines 43-48; col. 8-9, lines 53-67 and 1-46).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the tabbing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the delivering apparatus (130, 210, 230, 300, and/or 350) further comprises a cell-jig transportation apparatus (200/300), and wherein the cell-jig transportation apparatus comprises: a main body (350); a first movement structure (355) connected to the main body to be movable in a first direction; a second movement structure (351) connected to the main body to be movable in a second direction which is different from the first direction (fig. 9; cols. 13-14, lines 46-67 and 1-26); and a first support structure (313) and a second support structure (315) each integrally moving with the second movement structure and respectively supporting the wire jig and the solar cell at a same time, wherein the first support structure comprises a first contact surface (3135) facing the wire jig, wherein the second support structure comprises a second contact (3153) surface facing the solar cell, and wherein the first contact surface and the second contact surface have different *heights (in left/right direction, as seen in figs. 13A-13C) from each other (figs. 9-13C; col. 10, lines 4-35).
*NOTE: the limitation directed to “different heights” does not provide any referential directions or structures, such that the term is found to be subjectively defined by the vantage point (viewing direction) of the reader. As such, the two surfaces being at different locations is sufficient to anticipate different heights, as currently claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the tabbing apparatus of claim 6, wherein the first contact surface is arranged to be higher than the second contact surface (fig. 13A: 3135 is “higher” than 3155, when viewed horizontally from right side of page), and wherein a bottom surface of the wire jig and a bottom surface of the solar cell are arranged on a same plane (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the tabbing apparatus of claim 6, wherein, after the cell-jig transportation apparatus simultaneously supports the solar cell mounted on the alignment apparatus and the wire jig transported by the wire jig transportation apparatus, the cell-jig transportation apparatus is configured to move along with the delivering apparatus, and mount the solar cell and the wire jig on the wire mounted on the wire transportation apparatus (figs. 9-13C; col. 10, lines 4-35; cols. 13-14, lines 46-67 and 1-26)
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses the tabbing apparatus of claim 6, wherein the cell-jig transportation apparatus is provided (200/300 and all component parts of each) in plural to be integrally movable through the delivering apparatus, and, wherein after each of the plurality of cell-jig transportation apparatuses simultaneously supports the solar cell and the wire jig, each of the plurality of cell-jig transportation apparatuses is configured to simultaneously mount the solar cell and the wire jig on the wire (figs. 9-13C; col. 10, lines 4-35; cols. 13-14, lines 46-67 and 1-26).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses the tabbing apparatus of claim 9, wherein the plurality of cell-jig transportation apparatuses comprise two cell-jig transportation apparatuses (200 and 300 and any component parts), and wherein the main body of any one of the cell-jig transportation apparatuses is arranged on the second support structure of the other cell-jig transportation apparatus (fig. 8).
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chikaki, in view of Benson et al. (US 2011/0285840 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Chikaki discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Chikaki further discloses a position identification sensor (5) configured to identify the position of the solar cell mounted on the alignment apparatus (col. 4, lines 45-49; col. 11, lines 15-26). Chikaki, however, does not explicitly disclose a controller, wherein the controller is configured to correct the position of the solar cell, by controlling the alignment apparatus based on the position of the solar cell identified by the position identification sensor and a pre-stored reference value, and wherein the controller is configured to control the alignment apparatus based on one or more of position information about the wire transportation apparatus and position information about the wire jig transportation apparatus as the reference value.
Benson teaches that it is well known to provide a similar tabbing apparatus (fig. 2: all) for forming a solar cell module by connecting a solar cell with a wire (Title; Abstract), the tabbing apparatus comprising: a solar cell transportation apparatus (281) configured to transport the solar cell (fig. 3D; pars. 0057-0058); an alignment apparatus (406) configured to mount thereon the solar cell transported by the solar cell transportation apparatus, and correct a position of the solar cell (fig. 4B; pars. 0067 and 0072); and a delivering apparatus (238) configured to support the solar cell mounted on the alignment apparatus and having the corrected position and the wire jig transported by the wire jig transportation apparatus, and mount the solar cell and the wire jig on the wire on the wire transportation apparatus (par. 0059); the tabbing apparatus further including a controller (290) (pars. 0031-0032); and a position identification sensor (421) configured to identify the position of the solar cell mounted on the alignment apparatus (fig. 4A; pars. 0071-0076), wherein the controller is configured to correct the position of the solar cell, by controlling the alignment apparatus based on the position of the solar cell identified by the position identification sensor and a pre-stored reference value, and wherein the controller is configured to control the alignment apparatus based on one or more of position information about the wire transportation apparatus and position information about the wire jig transportation apparatus as the reference value (figs. 4A-4C; pars. 0066-0067, 0081-0082, 0086 and 0097).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Chikaki to incorporate the controller of Benson. POSITA would have realized that Chikaki discloses a position detection unit, and that there would be no purpose of such a device if there were also not a controller. That is, it is obvious to any POSITA that Chikaki would have naturally used a controller for effecting movement in response to the position detection information. A generic controller can be easily and readily incorporated into automated tabbing machines to achieve the desired precise assembly, and avoidance of costly rework due to avoidable misalignment. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special controller was devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old tabbing apparatus having a position sensor of Chikaki with the well-known controller working in conjunction with a position sensor of Benson. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the concurrently mailed PTO-892, as all of those cited references are considered to be pertinent to the claimed invention. For example, Okatsu et al. (US 6,357,649 B1) is held to be of particular relevance to the claimed invention (see, e.g., Title; Abstract; figs. 2 and 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571)272-3460. 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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights