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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 30th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 30th, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The rejections over Taira et al. in view of Yang et al. are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment, although new rejections over Taira et al. are introduced.
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 34 and 41 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.
Regarding Claim 34, Applicant recites, “wherein each first electrically insulating, optically transparent film of the plurality of first electrically insulating, optically transparent films is not unitary with each other first electrically insulating, optically transparent film of the plurality of first electrically insulating, optically transparent films; and/or wherein each second electrically insulating, optically transparent film of the plurality of second electrically insulating, optically transparent films is not unitary with each other second electrically insulating, optically transparent film of the plurality of second electrically insulating, optically transparent films”. 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. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 41, Applicant recites, “wherein each first electrically insulating, optically transparent film of the plurality of first electrically insulating, optically transparent films is not unitary with each other first electrically insulating, optically transparent film of the plurality of first electrically insulating, optically transparent films; and/or wherein each second electrically insulating, optically transparent film of the plurality of second electrically insulating, optically transparent films is not unitary with each other second electrically insulating, optically transparent film of the plurality of second electrically insulating, optically transparent films”. 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. Appropriate action is required.
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 6, and 33-34 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.
Regarding Claim 6, Applicant recites, “and optionally wherein the elongate busbar is arranged substantially in parallel with the conductive wire portion”. Its unclear if this limitation is required. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 33, Applicant recites, ‘the plurality of first electrically insulating, optically transparent films”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 33, Applicant recites, ‘the plurality of second electrically insulating, optically transparent films”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 34, Applicant recites, “wherein each first electrically insulating, optically transparent film of the plurality of first electrically insulating, optically transparent film of the plurality of first electrically insulating, optically transparent films”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 34, Applicant recites, “wherein each second electrically insulating, optically transparent film of the plurality of second electrically insulating, optically transparent film of the plurality of second electrically insulating, optically transparent films”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 19-21, 29-32, and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taira et al. (US 2012/0305047 A1)
In view of Claim 1, Taira et al. discloses a solar cell assembly (Fig. 3) comprising:
a layered structure comprising a photovoltaic element (Fig. 3, #4 & Paragraph 0039);
a back electrode assembly arranged on a surface of the layered structure, the electrode assembly comprising:
a first plurality of conductive wire portions (Fig. 5B, #5/#5b & Paragraph 0032);
a first plurality of conductive elements arranged on the surface of the layered structure (Fig. 4B, #41a & Paragraph 0048);
a second plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 5B, #41b & Paragraph 0048) interposed between the plurality of conductive wire portions (Fig. 5B, #5/#5b) and the first plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 5B, #41a);
Further regarding this limitation, the busbars 40b are disposed over the finger electrodes 41a (See Fig. 4B, #40b disposed over the finger electrodes #41a & Paragraph 0049), thus the busbar would be disposed between the finger electrodes and the wire portions
wherein the first plurality of conductive elements are configured to form an ohmic contact between the second plurality of conductive elements and the back surface of the layered structure, and the second plurality of conductive elements are configured to form an ohmic contact between the first plurality of conductive elements and the first plurality of conductive wire portions (Paragraph 0048-0054);
a front electrode assembly arranged on a front surface of the layered structure opposite the back surface (Fig 4A, #40a/#40b & Fig. 5, top surface), the front electrode assembly comprising:
a second plurality of conductive wire portions (Fig. 5B, #5/#5a top);
a third plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 5B, #40a/b);
wherein the second plurality of conductive wire portions (Fig. 5B, #5/#5a top) are configured to form a direct ohmic contact with the third plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 4B, #40a/b - Paragraph 0042); and
there are no intervening conductive elements between the second plurality of conductive wire portions (Fig. 5B, #5/#5a top); and the third plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 5B, #40a/b) along the entire length of the second plurality of conductive wire portions;
wherein the third plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 5B, #40a/b) are arranged substantially perpendicular with respect to at least one of the second plurality of conductive wire portions (Fig. 5B, #5/#5a top).
In view of Claim 5, Taira et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Taira et al. teaches that the second plurality of conductive elements define a plurality of elongate busbars (Fig. 4B, #41b & Paragraph 0048).
In view of Claim 6, Taira et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 5. Taira et al. teaches that the at least one conductive wire portion of the first plurality of conductive wire portions is arranged to at least partly overlay at least one elongate busbar of the plurality of elongate busbars (Figure 5b, #5 overlays 41b a plurality of times see Fig. 4B).
In view of Claim 8, Taira et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 7. Taira teaches at least one of the elongate busbars has a width which is measured in the plane of the surface of the layered structure, the width of the elongate busbar is at least equal to a thickness of the conductive wire portion measured in the plane of the surface of the layered structure (See Annotated Taira Fig. 5B, below).
Annotated Taira Figure 5B
PNG
media_image1.png
490
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of Claims 8-9, Taira et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 7. Taira teaches at least one of the elongate busbars has a width which is measured in the plane of the surface of the layered structure, the width of the elongate busbar is smaller than the thickness of the conductive wire portion (Fig. 5b, #41b has a thinner width than #5).
In view of Claim 11, Taira et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Taira et al. teaches that the width of a first portion of the elongate busbar is greater than a thickness of the conductive wire portion (See Annotated Taira Fig. 5B, above).
In view of Claim 19, Taira et al. is elied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 4. Although Taira et al. discloses that the first and second plurality of conductive elements are formed using a printed material (Paragraph 0045),
Alternatively, in regards to the limitation “wherein at least one of the first and second pluralities of conductive elements are formed using a printed material”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase "are formed using a printed material". It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
In view of Claim 20, Taira et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Taira et al. teaches that the plurality of solar cell assemblies are electrically coupled together to form a solar module (Figure 3).
In view of Claim 21, Taira et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 20. Taira et al. teaches a first solar cell assembly electrically coupled to a second solar cell assembly (Figure 3, #4), wherein the plurality of conductive wire portions of the first solar cell assembly are electrically coupled to the plurality of conductive wire portions of the second solar cell assembly (Figure 3, #5).
In view of Claim 29, Taira et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Yang et al. teaches that there are no intervening elements between the third plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 5B, #40a/b) and the front surface of a layered structure along the entire length of the plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 5b, #4).
In view of Claim 30, Taira et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 20. Taira et al. discloses that the second plurality of conductive wire portions of the first solar cell assembly and the first plurality of conductive wire portions of the second solar cell assembly form an electrical connection between the first and second solar cell assemblies (Fig. 3, #5).
In view of Claim 31, Taira et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 30. Taira et al. teaches that the second plurality of conductive wire portions of the first solar cell assembly and the first plurality of conductive wire portions of the second solar cell assembly are physically connected (Fig. 3, #5 physically connects and overlaps between the first and second solar cell assembly).
In view of Claim 32, Taira et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 31. Taira et al. teaches that the second plurality of conductive wire portions of the first solar cell assembly and the first plurality of conductive wire portions of the second solar cell assembly are integrally formed (Fig. 3, #5 physically connects and overlaps between the first and second solar cell assembly).
In view of Claim 37, Taira et al. discloses a solar cell module comprising a first solar cell assembly and a second solar cell assembly (Figs. 1-3 – Paragraph 0029) wherein each solar cell assembly of the first solar cell assembly and the second solar cell assembly comprises:
a layered structure comprising a photovoltaic element (Fig. 3, #4 & Paragraph 0039);
a back electrode assembly arranged on a surface of the layered structure, the electrode assembly comprising:
a first plurality of conductive wire portions (Fig. 5B, #5/#5b bottom & Paragraph 0032);
a first plurality of conductive elements arranged on the surface of the layered structure (Fig. 4B, #41a & Paragraph 0048);
a second plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 5B, #41b & Paragraph 0048) interposed between the plurality of conductive wire portions (Fig. 5B, #5/#5b) and the first plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 5B, #41a);
Further regarding this limitation, the busbars 40b are disposed over the finger electrodes 41a (See Fig. 4B, #40b disposed over the finger electrodes #41a & Paragraph 0049), thus the busbar would be disposed between the finger electrodes and the wire portions
wherein the first plurality of conductive elements are configured to form an ohmic contact between the second plurality of conductive elements and the back surface of the layered structure, and the second plurality of conductive elements are configured to form an ohmic contact between the first plurality of conductive elements and the first plurality of conductive wire portions (Paragraph 0048-0054);
a front electrode assembly arranged on a front surface of the layered structure opposite the back surface (Fig 4A, #40a/#40b & Fig. 5, top surface), the front electrode assembly comprising:
a second plurality of conductive wire portions (Fig. 5B, #5/#5a top);
a third plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 5B, #40a/b);
wherein the second plurality of conductive wire portions (Fig. 5B, #5/#5a top) are configured to form a direct ohmic contact with the third plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 4B, #40a/b - Paragraph 0042); and
there are no intervening conductive elements between the second plurality of conductive wire portions (Fig. 5B, #5/#5a top); and the third plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 5B, #40a/b) along the entire length of the second plurality of conductive wire portions;
wherein the third plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 5B, #40a/b) are arranged substantially perpendicular with respect to at least one of the second plurality of conductive wire portions (Fig. 5B, #5/#5a top);
wherein the second plurality of conductive wire portions of the first solar cell assembly (Fig. 5A-B, #5/#5a top) and the first plurality of conductive wire portions of a second solar cell assembly (Fig. 5A-B, #5/#5b) form an electrical connection between first and second solar cell assemblies (Fig. 3, see perpendicular wire connection between solar cells).
In view of Claims 38-39, Taira et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 37. Taira et al. teaches that the second plurality of conductive wire portions of the first solar cell assembly (Fig. 5A-B, #5/#5a top) and the first plurality of conductive wire portions of the second solar cell assembly (Fig. 5B, #5/#5b bottom) are physically connected such that they are integrally formed (Fig. 3, see perpendicular wire connection between solar cells)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira et al. (US 2012/0305047 A1) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2019/0255641 A1).
In view of Claim 10, Taira et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Taira et al. does not disclose that the width of the elongate busbar is less than 0.7 mm.
Hwang et al. teaches that the widths of elongated busbars are less than 0.7 mm (Paragraph 0084 & 0090-0091). Hwang et al. teaches that when the electrodes increase in size it causes increased shading loss and material costs without considerable improvement in the contact between the interconnector and the electrode (Paragraph 0094). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a width of the elongate busbar to be less than 0.7 mm as disclosed by Hwang et al. in Taira et al. solar cell assembly for the advantages of having busbars and finger electrodes that to do not cause increased shading loss, and do not cost as much while maintaining contact between the interconnector and the electrode.
In view of Claim 12, Taira et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Taira et al. does not disclose that the width of the elongate busbars varies along its length.
Hwang et al. teaches that the width of elongate busbars can vary along its length (Figure 5, #421/#422 & Paragraph 0087). Hwang et al. teaches that this busbar configuration minimizes the area by which light is blocked while the pad portions increase the attachment force between the interconnectors and the busbar lines and thus reduces contact resistance (Paragraph 0087). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the width of the elongate busbars vary along its length for the advantages of minimizing the area by which light is blocked and increased the attachment force between the ribbon/interconnector and the busbar lines.
In view of Claim 13, Taira et al., Yang et al., and Hwang et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Hwang et al. teaches longitudinal edges of the elongated busbars comprise a plurality of straight facets (Figure 5, #421/#422).
Claims 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira et al. (US 2012/0305047 A1) in view of Steckemetz et al. (US 2016/0365469 A1).
In view of Claim 12, Taira et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Taira et al. does not disclose that the width of the elongate busbars varies along its length.
Steckemetz et al. teaches the width of elongated busbars vary along its length (Figure 4-6 & Paragraph 0056). Steckemetz et al. teaches that this electrode configuration results in reliable power transmission of the contact fingers while maintaining solder contacts (Paragraph 0013) and results in enhanced reliability (Paragraph 0014). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt Steckemetz et al. busbar and finger electrode configuration such that the width of the elongated busbars vary along its length for the advantages of having a configuration that results in reliable power transmission that maintains solder contact with the finger electrodes and has enhanced reliability.
In view of Claim 13, Taira et al., and Steckemetz et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Steckemetz et al. teaches that the longitudinal edgers of the elongated busbars can be a plurality of straight or curved faces (Figs. 4-5, #30).
In view of Claim 14, Taira et al., and Steckemetz et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 12. Steckemetz et al. teaches that the width of the elongated busbar varies along its length to define a diamond shape (Figure 4, #30).
In view of Claim 15, Taira et al., and Steckemetz et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 14. Taira et al. teaches each of the wire portions of the first plurality of conductive wire portions is configured to overlay a corresponding conductive element of the plurality of elongated busbars (Figure 5B, #5 overlays #41b).
In view of Claim 16, Taira et al., and Steckemetz et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 15. Taira et al. teaches that an axial length of each of the wire portions of the first plurality of conductive wire portions is configured to be substantially parallel to an axial length of a corresponding conductive element of the plurality of elongated busbars upon which they are overlaid (Figure 5B, #5 overlays #41b).
In view of Claim 17, Taira et al., and Steckemetz et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 16. Steckemetz et al. was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to have specific busbar and finger electrode shapes. In the instant case, Steckemetz et al. discloses a configuration where the plurality of finger electrodes comprise at least one finger electrode that would be “substantially misaligned in a lengthwise direction of at least one elongated busbar that overlaps the finger electrode (Figure 5-6, #35).
In view of Claim 18, Taira et al., and Steckemetz et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 17. Steckemetz et al. teaches at least one finger electrode is arranged substantially perpendicularly with respect to the at least one elongate busbar (Figure 4-6, #31).
Claims 33, 35-36, 40, and 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira et al. (US 2012/0305047 A1) in view of Irikawa (US 2021/0066524 A1).
In view of Claim 33, Taira et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 20. Taira et al. teaches that for each solar cell assembly of the plurality of solar cell assemblies the first plurality of conductive wire portions is arranged on a respective first electrical insulating film of a plurality of first electrical insulating films (Fig. 5B, #15 & Paragraph 0054-0055) but does not disclose explicitly it can be transparent.
Irikawa discloses a plurality of conductive wire portions arranged on or within a respective first electrically insulating optical transparent film of a plurality of first electrically insulating optical films (Figs. 2-3, #40 - Paragraph 0039). Irikawa discloses that this resin inhibits concentration of stress in the cell/wiring member/cell portion caused by application of a load or thermal cycling and prevents production of a crack in the solar cell (Paragraph 0022). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use Irikawa’s material for Taira et al. electrical insulating film for the advantages of using a resin film that inhibits concentration of stress in the cell/wiring member/cell portion caused by application of a load or thermal cycling and prevents production of a crack in the solar cell.
In view of Claim 35, Taira et al. and Irikawa are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 33. Modified Taira et al. discloses that each of the first electrically insulating optically transparent (taught by Irikawa) films do not overlap with each other (Figs. 5A-B, #15 does not overlap w/ the adjoining solar cells).
In view of Claim 36, Taira et al. and Irikawa are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 35. Modified Taira et al. discloses an encapsulant configured to adhere to one of the first electrically insulating optically transparent films and second electrically insulating optically transparent films of the plurality of second electrically insulating optically transparent films (Fig. 3, #7 & Paragraph 0031).
In view of Claim 40, Taira et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 37. Taira et al. teaches that for each solar cell assembly of the plurality of solar cell assemblies the first plurality of conductive wire portions is arranged on a respective first electrical insulating film of a plurality of first electrical insulating films (Fig. 5B, #15 & Paragraph 0054-0055) but does not disclose explicitly it can be transparent.
Irikawa discloses a plurality of conductive wire portions arranged on or within a respective first electrically insulating optical transparent film of a plurality of first electrically insulating optical films (Figs. 2-3, #40 - Paragraph 0039). Irikawa discloses that this resin inhibits concentration of stress in the cell/wiring member/cell portion caused by application of a load or thermal cycling and prevents production of a crack in the solar cell (Paragraph 0022). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use Irikawa’s material for Taira et al. electrical insulating film for the advantages of using a resin film that inhibits concentration of stress in the cell/wiring member/cell portion caused by application of a load or thermal cycling and prevents production of a crack in the solar cell.
In view of Claim 42, Taira et al. and Irikawa are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 41. Modified Taira et al. discloses that each of the first electrically insulating optically transparent (taught by Irikawa) films do not overlap with each other (Figs. 5A-B, #15 does not overlap w/ the adjoining solar cells).
In view of Claim 43, Taira et al. and Irikawa are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 42. Modified Taira et al. discloses an encapsulant configured to adhere to one of the first electrically insulating optically transparent films and second electrically insulating optically transparent films of the plurality of second electrically insulating optically transparent films (Fig. 3, #7 & Paragraph 0031).
Claims 34 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira et al. (US 2012/0305047 A1) in view of Irikawa (US 2021/0066524 A1) in view of Rostan et al. (US 2017/0243992 A1).
In view of Claims 34 and 41, Taira et al. and Irikawa are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claims 33 and 40. Modified Taira et al. does not disclose that each of the first electrically insulating optically transparent films is not unitary w/ another first electrically insulating optically transparent film.
Rostan et al. discloses that solar cells may be arranged in configurations that are not unitary (Fig. 2A, 1041 & 1042 are not unitary). Rostan et al. teaches that conventionally electrode designs may contribute to significant losses in cell efficiency (Paragraph 0009). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt Rostan et al. unconventional arrangement of electrode design as shown in Fig. 2A and arranged the solar cells thus, which would result in “non unitarily” arranged first electrically insulating optically transparent films from solar cell to solar cell along the string for the advantage of having a electrode design that does not contribute to significant losses in cell efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Taira et al. does not disclose a second plurality of conductive wire portions, a third plurality of conductive elements interposed between the second plurality of conductive wire portions and the front surface of the layered structure, wherein at least one of the third plurality of conductive elements is arranged perpendicularly with respect to at least one of the second plurality of conductive wire portions and wherein there are no conductive elements overlaying the second plurality of conductive wire portions. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant’s representative that Taira et al. teaches a second plurality of conductive wire portions (Fig. 5B, #5/#5a top); a third plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 5B, #40a/b); and there are no intervening conductive elements between the second plurality of conductive wire portions (Fig. 5B, #5/#5a top); and the third plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 5B, #40a/b) along the entire length of the second plurality of conductive wire portions; wherein the third plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 5B, #40a/b) are arranged substantially perpendicular with respect to at least one of the second plurality of conductive wire portions (Fig. 5B, #5/#5a top). Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Taira et al. does not disclose that the second plurality of conductive wire portions of the first solar cell assembly and the first plurality of conductive wire portions of the second solar cell assembly form an electrical connection between the first and second solar cell assemblies. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that Taira et al. teaches wherein the second plurality of conductive wire portions of the first solar cell assembly (Fig. 5A-B, #5/#5a top) and the first plurality of conductive wire portions of a second solar cell assembly (Fig. 5A-B, #5/#5b) form an electrical connection between first and second solar cell assemblies (Fig. 3, see perpendicular wire connection between solar cells). Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds for rejection being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST.
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 T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights