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
The amendment filed December 8th, 2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The previous grounds for rejection based solely on Taira et al. are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds for rejection follow.
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 1, 5-9, 11, 19-21, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taira et al. (US 2012/0305047 A1) in view of Yang et al. (US 2015/0072463 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, #40b);
a third plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 5B, #40a);
wherein the second plurality of conductive wire portions (Fig. 5B, #40b) are configured to form a direct ohmic contact with the third plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 4B, #40a - Paragraph 0042); and
wherein the third plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 5B, #40a) are arranged substantially perpendicular with respect to at least one of the second plurality of conductive wire portions (Fig. 5B, #40b).
Taira et al. fails to recognize that there are no intervening elements between the second plurality of conductive wire portions and the third plurality of conductive elements along the entire length of the second plurality of conductive wire portions.
Yang et al. discloses a front electrode assembly where there are no intervening elements between a second plurality of conductive wire portions (Fig. 7, the fingers arranged horizontally) and a third plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 7, the busbars) along the entire length of the second plurality of conductive wire portions (Fig. 7 & Paragraph 0015 – the busbars are printed on top of the finger electrodes). Yang et al. discloses that this configuration reduces the cost of manufacturing while maintaining high cell efficiency (Paragraph 0006-0007). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute Yang et al. finger/busbar configuration with Taira et al. finger/busbar configuration (40a/b) such that there are no intervening elements between the second plurality of conductive wire portions and the third plurality of conductive elements along the entire length of the second plurality of conductive wire portions for the advantage of reducing the cost of manufacturing while maintaining high cell efficiency.
In view of Claim 5, Taira et al. and Yang et al. are 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. and Yang et al. are 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 7, Taira et al. and Yang et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Taira et al. teaches that the elongate busbar is arranged substantially in parallel with the conductive wire portion (Fig. 5b, connection ribbon 5 overlies 41b in a parallel fashion, see Fig. 3, they are both extended in the same longitudinal direction).
In view of Claim 8, Taira et al. and Yang et al. are 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, as best understood by the Examiner, Taira et al. and Yang et al. are 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. and Yang et al. are 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. and Yang et al. are relied 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. and Yang et al. are 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. and Yang et al. are 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. and Yang et al. are 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 and the front surface of a layered structure along the entire length of the plurality of conductive elements (Fig. 7, finger electrodes are first layer on top of solar cell).
In view of Claim 30, Taira et al. and Yang et al. are 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).
Yang et al. was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to have the second plurality of conductive wire portions and the third plurality of conductive elements to be arranged in the context of claim 1.
In view of Claim 31, Taira et al. and Yang et al. are 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).
Yang et al. was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to have the second plurality of conductive wire portions and the third plurality of conductive elements to be arranged in the context of claim 1.
In view of Claim 32, Taira et al. and Yang et al. are 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).
Yang et al. was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to have the second plurality of conductive wire portions and the third plurality of conductive elements to be arranged in the context of claim 1.
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 Yang et al. (US 2015/0072463 A1) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2019/0255641 A1).
In view of Claim 10, Taira et al. and Yang et al. are 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. and Yang et al. are 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 Yang et al. (US 2015/0072463 A1) in view of Steckemetz et al. (US 2016/0365469 A1).
In view of Claim 12, Taira et al., and Yang et al., are 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., Yang 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., Yang 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., Yang 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., Yang 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., Yang 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., Yang 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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