DETAILED ACTION
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.03.
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
Applicant’s amendment of 10/02/2025 does not place the Application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are currently pending. In response to Office Action mailed on 06/04/2025, Applicant has amended claims 1-2, 6 and 9, and cancelled claim 4. Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from consideration as being part of non-elected invention.
Status of the Rejections
Due to Applicant’s amendment of claim 1, all rejections from the Office Action mailed on 06/04/2025 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Instant claim 21 requires that the shape to be a non-rectilinear cross section, which is not supported by the original disclosure as filed. Although instant application discloses a semi-circular cross-section, it does not preclude from using any other shapes.
There is no support in the original specification of the instant application that would reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed non-rectilinear cross section shape. Although instant application discloses a semi-circular cross-section, it does not preclude from using any other shapes such as rectilinear shape.
MPEP at §2173.05(i) clearly states that "any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure" and "any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement". Therefore, the new matter rejection is set-forth as the use of rectilinear is not precluded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (2017/0077334 A1) in view of Krause et al. (US 2011/0290298 A1) and Hishida et al. (US 2009/0126788 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Woo discloses a string of solar cells (solar cell module as shown in figures 6-7, [0129-0140]) comprising:
a first and second solar cells (C1 and C2) (fig. 6/7 and [0134]),
each of the first (C1) and second (C2) solar cells having a plurality of bond pads (conductive adhesive 251) (fig. 6/7, [0134]),
each of the first (C1) and second (C2) solar cells being a crystalline silicon solar cell (see [0058], [0069], [0073]), and
each of the first (C1) and second (C2) solar cells being a back contact solar cell (see figure 7 and [0132]); and
a plurality of conductive interconnect wires (conductive lines 200) (see fig. 6 and [0132]),
each interconnect wire (200) electrically connecting the first solar cell (C1) to the second solar cell (C2) in series (fig. 7 and [0132]),
each interconnect wire (200) comprising a first bond bonding the interconnect wire (200) to a bond pad (251) on the first solar cell (C1) and a second bond bonding the interconnect wire (200) to a bond pad (251) on the second solar cell (C2) (fig. 6/7 and [0134]), and
the interconnect wire (200) comprises a bend (200P) (fig. 7) located between the first (C1) and second (C2) solar cells (see fig. 7).
However, Woo does not disclose that the interconnect wires (200) is bonded to the bond pads (251) by wedge bonding, wherein at the location of each wedge bond, the interconnect wire comprises an area flattened relative to an area of the wire surrounding the flattened area.
Krause discloses a string of solar cells (700) wherein bond pads (electrically conductive point contacts 708 and 710) are positioned on each of first and second solar cells (702 and 704) (see fig. 7 and [0110-0124]). Krause further discloses interconnect wires (706) are bonded via wedge bonding ([0121]) to the bond pads (708 and 710). Wedge-bond is known to melt the metal and bond the interconnect wire (706) with the bond pads (708 and 710), and thus forms an area flattened at the bond pads location relative to an area of the wire surrounding the flattened area. Krause also discloses the contact/interconnect wire (706) is wedge bonded radially (Abstract and [0116]), and thus the metal flattens out radially at the contact pad’s location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the wedge bonding as taught by Krause in the solar cell strings of Woo to connect the interconnect wire to the solar cells such that warpage of the solar cells can be prevented, as shown by Krause ([0057]).
Woo does not show a third solar cell and a third wedge bond bonding the interconnect wire to a bond pad on the third solar cell.
Hishida discloses a string of solar cells (see figure 4) wherein an interconnect wire (72) electrically connects three or more solar cells (four solar cells, see figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to add an additional solar cell of Woo next to the second solar cell of Woo as taught by Fujii to form the string of solar cells of Woo such that more light can be converted to electricity.
Also note that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Thus, Woo as modified by Krause and Hishida discloses a third wedge bond (as modified by Krause) bonding the interconnect wire to a bond pad on the third solar cell.
Regarding claim 2, Woo further discloses that the first and second crystalline silicone solar cells (C1 and C2) are back contact solar cells (see figure 7), and wherein the bond pads (251) are disposed on a rear surface of the first and second solar cells (C1 and C2) (fig. 7 and [0134]).
Regarding claim 4, Woo further discloses each bond pad (251) comprises tin alloy coating ([0098]).
Regarding claim 7, Woo as modified by Krause further discloses that each interconnect wire (200) comprises two or more wedge bonds (at the locations of 251) (see figures 6/7 of Woo) bonding the interconnect wire (200) to bond pads (251) on the first solar cell (C1), and two or more wedge bonds (at the locations of 251) (see figures 6/7 of Woo) bonding the interconnect wire (200) to bond pads (251) on the second solar cell (C1).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (2017/0077334 A1) in view of Krause et al. (US 2011/0290298 A1) and Hishida et al. (US 2009/0126788 A1) as applied above, and further in view of Fujii et al. (US 2007/0095387 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Woo further discloses that each interconnect wire (200) comprises a metal ([0092]). However, Woo is silent as to whether the interconnect wire comprises a copper core and a tin alloy coating.
Fujii discloses a string of solar cells (see figure 4) wherein an interconnect wire ([0034-0042]) comprises a copper core (copper foil which is coated with solder, [0034]) and a tin alloy coating (solder that coats the Cu foil, wherein the solder includes tin alloy as disclosed in [0039]). Fujii further discloses that the interconnect wire prevents defects caused by stressed induced in the interconnect wire ([0020])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the interconnect wire of Fujii to form the interconnect wire of Woo in order to prevent defects caused by stressed induced in the interconnect wire, as taught by Fujii.
Regarding claim 8, Woo further discloses that each interconnect wire (272) comprises a metal ([0092]). However, Woo does not explicitly disclose that a diameter of each interconnect wire is greater than 200 µm.
Fujii discloses a string of solar cells (see figure 4) wherein an interconnect wire (8) ([0034-0042]) comprises metal such as copper with a dimension of 100-300 µm ([0034-0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the Cu interconnect wire with a dimension of 100-300 micron as taught by Fujii to form the interconnect wire of Woo such that the interconnect wire is capable of preventing defects caused by stressed induced in the interconnect wire, as taught by Fujii ([0020]).
Therefore, claimed range (great than 200 micron) overlaps with the disclosed range (100-300 micron). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)) (MPEP § 2144.05 - (I)).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo et al. (2017/0077334 A1) in view of Krause et al. (US 2011/0290298 A1).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Woo discloses a string of solar cells (solar cell module as shown in figures 6-7, [0129-0140]) comprising:
a first and second solar cells (C1 and C2) (fig. 6/7 and [0134]),
each of the first (C1) and second (C2) solar cells having a plurality of bond pads (conductive adhesive 251) (fig. 6/7, [0134]),
each of the first (C1) and second (C2) solar cells being a crystalline silicon solar cell (see [0058], [0069], [0073]), and
each of the first (C1) and second (C2) solar cells being a back contact solar cell (see figure 7 and [0132]); and
a plurality of conductive interconnect wires (conductive lines 200) (see fig. 6 and [0132]),
each interconnect wire (200) electrically connecting the first solar cell (C1) to the second solar cell (C2) in series (fig. 7 and [0132]),
each interconnect wire (200) comprising a first bond bonding the interconnect wire (200) to a bond pad (251) on the first solar cell (C1) and a second bond bonding the interconnect wire (200) to a bond pad (251) on the second solar cell (C2) (fig. 6/7 and [0134]),
the interconnect wire (200) comprises a bend (200P) (fig. 7) located between the first (C1) and second (C2) solar cells (see fig. 7), and
a bend (200P, fig. 7) located between the first (C1) and second (C2) solar cells, the bend having a shape (see fig. 7).
Although Woo does not disclose the shape comprising a non-rectilinear cross section or a semi-circular cross section, instant application as originally filed fails to disclose whether the claimed shape comprising a non-rectilinear cross section or a semi-circular cross section gives new or unexpected results. In absence of evident of criticality, the configuration of the claimed shape of the bend portion was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape of the bend portion was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP §2144.04 IVB.
However, Woo does not disclose that the interconnect wires (200) is bonded to the bond pads (251) by wedge bonding, wherein at the location of each wedge bond, the interconnect wire comprises an area flattened relative to an area of the wire surrounding the flattened area.
Krause discloses a string of solar cells (700) wherein bond pads (electrically conductive point contacts 708 and 710) are positioned on each of first and second solar cells (702 and 704) (see fig. 7 and [0110-0124]). Krause further discloses interconnect wires (706) are bonded via wedge bonding ([0121]) to the bond pads (708 and 710). Wedge-bond is known to melt the metal and bond the interconnect wire (706) with the bond pads (708 and 710), and thus forms an area flattened at the bond pads location relative to an area of the wire surrounding the flattened area. Krause also discloses the contact/interconnect wire (706) is wedge bonded radially (Abstract and [0116]), and thus the metal flattens out radially at the contact pad’s location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the wedge bonding as taught by Krause in the solar cell strings of Woo to connect the interconnect wire to the solar cells such that warpage of the solar cells can be prevented, as shown by Krause ([0057]).
Regarding claim 23, Woo discloses a string of solar cells (solar cell module as shown in figures 6-7, [0129-0140]) comprising:
a first and second solar cells (C1 and C2) (fig. 6/7 and [0134]),
each of the first (C1) and second (C2) solar cells having a plurality of bond pads (conductive adhesive 251) (fig. 6/7, [0134]),
each of the first (C1) and second (C2) solar cells being a crystalline silicon solar cell (see [0058], [0069], [0073]), and
each of the first (C1) and second (C2) solar cells being a back contact solar cell (see figure 7 and [0132]); and
a plurality of conductive interconnect wires (conductive lines 200) (see fig. 6 and [0132]),
each interconnect wire (200) electrically connecting the first solar cell (C1) to the second solar cell (C2) in series (fig. 7 and [0132]),
each interconnect wire (200) comprising a first bond bonding the interconnect wire (200) to a bond pad (251) on the first solar cell (C1) and a second bond bonding the interconnect wire (200) to a bond pad (251) on the second solar cell (C2) (fig. 6/7 and [0134]),
the interconnect wire (200) comprises a bend (200P) (fig. 7) located between the first (C1) and second (C2) solar cells (see fig. 7), and
wherein the plurality of bond pads (251) are at least electrically connected to each other through a path (through 141/142 and 110) different from the interconnect wires (200) (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
354
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Woo does not disclose that the interconnect wires (200) is bonded to the bond pads (251) by wedge bonding, wherein at the location of each wedge bond, the interconnect wire comprises an area flattened relative to an area of the wire surrounding the flattened area.
Krause discloses a string of solar cells (700) wherein bond pads (electrically conductive point contacts 708 and 710) are positioned on each of first and second solar cells (702 and 704) (see fig. 7 and [0110-0124]). Krause further discloses interconnect wires (706) are bonded via wedge bonding ([0121]) to the bond pads (708 and 710). Wedge-bond is known to melt the metal and bond the interconnect wire (706) with the bond pads (708 and 710), and thus forms an area flattened at the bond pads location relative to an area of the wire surrounding the flattened area. Krause also discloses the contact/interconnect wire (706) is wedge bonded radially (Abstract and [0116]), and thus the metal flattens out radially at the contact pad’s location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the wedge bonding as taught by Krause in the solar cell strings of Woo to connect the interconnect wire to the solar cells such that warpage of the solar cells can be prevented, as shown by Krause ([0057]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 7-8 and 21-23 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by the amendments.
The arguments are directed to the claims as amended and is moot in view of new grounds of rejection as presented above.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Correspondence/Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7am - 4pm.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached on 303-297-4684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GOLAM MOWLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights