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 .
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 2 and 21 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “and/or”, and the claim also recites “and” immediately after “and/or” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the back-side overlap region and the cell connector covering region A are identical, and the front-side overlap region and the cell connector covering region B are identical" in the last clause. It is unclear why two different terminologies are used to claim the same feature, such that it is unclear the difference between them. It does not appear that there is a difference between the two regions, such that clarification is requested.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Suzuki et al. (JP H05-067017; see English machine translation) in view of Morad et al. (US 2014/0124014).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses a solar cell string (see Figure 1), comprising a first photovoltaic solar cell A (solar cell 1 first from the left) and at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B (solar cell 1 second from the left), the first photovoltaic solar cell A having at least one first metallic electrode A (back electrode 1b) and the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B having at least one second metallic electrode B (front electrode 1a), and the at least one first metallic electrode A being electrically conductively connected to the at least one second metallic electrode B by means of a cell connector (copper foil 30a) of the solar cell string ([0023]; see Figure 1),
wherein the cell connector is a flexurally slack cell connector (see Figure 1) and is formed as a foil monolayer (it is disclosed the interconnector 2a is a flexible printed circuit board made of a flexible substrate with a copper foil 30a; [0024]), which at least partly covers a side of the first photovoltaic solar cell A and the at least one first metallic electrode A in a cell connector covering region A (contact portion 7a; see Figure 1), and the cell connector is at least partly directly electrically conductively connected to the at least one first metallic electrode A in the cell connector covering region A ([0026]; see Figure 1),
the cell connector at least partly covers a side of the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B and the at least one second metallic electrode B in a cell connector covering region B (contact portion 7b; see Figure 1), and the cell connector is at least partly directly electrically conductively connected to the at least one second metallic electrode B in the cell connector covering region B ([0026]; see Figure 1),
the first photovoltaic solar cell A and at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B are arranged in an overlapping fashion (see Figure 1), such that a back-side overlap region of the back side of the first photovoltaic solar cell A is arranged over a front-side overlap region of the front side of the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B (see Figure 1),
the at least one first metallic electrode A is arranged at the back side of the first photovoltaic solar cell A and is configured to conduct electrical charge carriers at the back side of the first photovoltaic solar cell A to the back-side overlap region or to conduct electrical charge carriers away from the back-side overlap region (as set forth above),
the at least one second metallic electrode B is arranged at the front side of the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B and is configured to conduct electrical charge carriers at the front side of the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B to the front-side overlap region or to conduct electrical charge carriers away from the front- side overlap region (as set forth above), and wherein,
the cell connector is arranged electrically conductively at the at least one first metallic electrode A in the back-side overlap region and electrically conductively at the at least one second metallic electrode B in the front-side overlap region (see Figure 1),
the back-side overlap region and the cell connector covering region A are identical (see Figure 1).
Suzuki does not expressly disclose at least one of the cell connector covering region A or the cell connector covering region B, has a width of less than 1000 µm.
Morad discloses in paragraph [0125] that the half width W1 of an interconnect can be approximately 1.5 mm, where it can be seen in Figures 4 and 5A less than half of the width of the interconnect overlaps with busbar 15, and paragraph [0085] states the width of bus bar 15 can be about 1.5 mm, where Figure 6C shows less than the full width of the bus bar is part of the cell connector covering region.
Morad also discloses the width of the bus bar 15 to be less than or equal to about 3 mm ([0085]) and the width of the back contact pad 30 to be less than or equal to about 3 mm ([0086]), where the width of the bus bar and the width, number, spacing of fingers on the front surface may be varied depending on the intensity of solar radiation to be concentrated on the solar cell ([0085]).
Therefore, as the overall collection efficiency and amount of shading from the bus bar on the front surface are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said width of the bus bar, with both said collection efficiency and the amount of shading increasing as the width of the bus bar is increased, the precise width of the bus bar and thus, the width of the connector covering region, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed width of the connector covering region cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the width of the bus bar and thus, the width of the connector covering region in the apparatus of Suzuki to obtain the desired balance between the collection efficiency and the amount of shading on the front surface of the solar cell (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 2, modified Suzuki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the cell connector covering region A has a length which is greater than 80% of a side length of the first photovoltaic solar cell A at the cell connector covering region A (see Figure 2), and/or, preferably and,
the cell connector covering region B has a length which is greater than 80% of a side length of the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B at the cell connector covering region B (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, modified Suzuki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Morad further discloses the at least one second metallic electrode B has a plurality of rectilinear fingers that run parallel (fingers 20), the fingers not being directly connected by metallic elements of the at least one second metallic electrode B in the cell connector covering region B (it is disclosed there may be a bypass conductor 40, which provides an alternative electrical path between severed fingers from cracks; [0083]; see Figure 1A), and the cell connector being directly electrically conductively connected to at least 50% of the fingers of the at least one second metallic electrode B (it is disclosed the bypass conductor interconnects at least two fingers but need not interconnect all fingers ([0083]), such that the rest of the fingers are directly electrically connected to the cell connector through the bus bar 15), and wherein at least one of:
outside the cell connector covering region B, at the edge side situated opposite the cell connector covering region B, at least two fingers are electrically conductively connected to one another by a metallic cross-connector of the at least one second metallic electrode B (conductor 42; [0084]; see Figure 1A), or
at least one first metallic electrode A has a plurality of rectilinear fingers that run parallel, the fingers not being directly connected by metallic elements of the at least one first metallic electrode A in the cell connector covering region A, and the cell connector being directly electrically conductively connected to at least 50% of the fingers of the at least one first metallic electrode A, or
outside the cell connector covering region A, at the edge side situated opposite the cell connector covering region A, at least two fingers are electrically conductively connected to one another by a metallic cross-connector of the at least one first metallic electrode A.
As modified Suzuki is not limited to any specific examples of the configuration of the metallic electrodes A and B and as metallic electrodes having a plurality of rectilinear fingers that are parallel were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Morad above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used metallic electrodes A and B comprising a plurality of rectilinear fingers in the device of Suzuki. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 6, modified Suzuki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses at least one of:
the at least one first metallic electrode A does not completely cover the cell connector covering region A, and in at least one region not covered by the at least one first metallic electrode A, the cell connector is mechanically connected to the first photovoltaic solar cell A (as set forth above by Morad and Suzuki discloses the electrode is joined to the interconnector with solder; [0026]), or
the at least one second metallic electrode B does not completely cover the cell connector covering region B, and in at least one region not covered by the at least one second metallic electrode B, the cell connector is mechanically connected to the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B (as set forth above by Morad and Suzuki discloses the electrode is joined to the interconnector with solder; [0026]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Suzuki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the cell connector covering region A and the cell connector covering region B are arranged at a common side of the cell connector (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Suzuki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the cell connector is configured as a foil ([0024] and [0025]), the cell connector is configured as a monolayer, or the cell connector is configured as a foil monolayer.
Regarding claim 12, modified Suzuki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a solar cell module (see Figure 1) comprising a plurality of solar cell strings as claimed in claim 1 (as shown in Figure 9), wherein the solar cell strings are electrically conductively connected to one another ([0046]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 21, Suzuki discloses a solar cell string (see Figure 1), comprising a first photovoltaic solar cell A (solar cell 1 first from the left) and at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B (solar cell 1 second from the left), the first photovoltaic solar cell A having at least one first metallic electrode A (back electrode 1b) and the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B having at least one second metallic electrode B (front electrode 1a), and the at least one first metallic electrode A being electrically conductively connected to the at least one second metallic electrode B by means of a cell connector (copper foil 30a) of the solar cell string ([0023]; see Figure 1),
wherein the cell connector is a flexurally slack cell connector (see Figure 1), which at least partly covers a side of the first photovoltaic solar cell A and the at least one first metallic electrode A in a cell connector covering region A (contact portion 7a; see Figure 1), and the cell connector is at least partly directly electrically conductively solder bonded to the at least one first metallic electrode A in the cell connector covering region A ([0026]; see Figure 1),
the cell connector at least partly covers a side of the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B and the at least one second metallic electrode B in a cell connector covering region B (contact portion 7b; see Figure 1), and the cell connector is at least partly directly electrically conductively solder bonded to the at least one second metallic electrode B in the cell connector covering region B ([0026]; see Figure 1),
the first photovoltaic solar cell A and at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B are arranged in an overlapping fashion (see Figure 1), such that a back-side overlap region of the back side of the first photovoltaic solar cell A is arranged over a front-side overlap region of the front side of the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B (see Figure 1),
the at least one first metallic electrode A is arranged at the back side of the first photovoltaic solar cell A and is configured to conduct electrical charge carriers at the back side of the first photovoltaic solar cell A to the back-side overlap region or to conduct electrical charge carriers away from the back-side overlap region (as set forth above),
the at least one second metallic electrode B is arranged at the front side of the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B and is configured to conduct electrical charge carriers at the front side of the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B to the front-side overlap region or to conduct electrical charge carriers away from the front- side overlap region (as set forth above), and wherein,
the cell connector is arranged electrically conductively at the at least one first metallic electrode A in the back-side overlap region and electrically conductively at the at least one second metallic electrode B in the front-side overlap region (see Figure 1),
the back-side overlap region and the cell connector covering region A are identical (see Figure 1), and
the front-side overlap region and the cell connector covering region B are identical (see Figure 1).
Suzuki does not expressly disclose at least one of the cell connector covering region A or the cell connector covering region B, has a width of less than 1000 µm.
Morad discloses in paragraph [0125] that the half width W1 of an interconnect can be approximately 1.5 mm, where it can be seen in Figures 4 and 5A less than half of the width of the interconnect overlaps with busbar 15, and paragraph [0085] states the width of bus bar 15 can be about 1.5 mm, where Figure 6C shows less than the full width of the bus bar is part of the cell connector covering region.
Morad also discloses the width of the bus bar 15 to be less than or equal to about 3 mm ([0085]) and the width of the back contact pad 30 to be less than or equal to about 3 mm ([0086]), where the width of the bus bar and the width, number, spacing of fingers on the front surface may be varied depending on the intensity of solar radiation to be concentrated on the solar cell ([0085]).
Therefore, as the overall collection efficiency and amount of shading from the bus bar on the front surface are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said width of the bus bar, with both said collection efficiency and the amount of shading increasing as the width of the bus bar is increased, the precise width of the bus bar and thus, the width of the connector covering region, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed width of the connector covering region cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the width of the bus bar and thus, the width of the connector covering region in the apparatus of Suzuki to obtain the desired balance between the collection efficiency and the amount of shading on the front surface of the solar cell (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
While modified Suzuki does not expressly disclose the cell connector is at least partly directly electrically conductively laser metal bonded to the at least one first or second metallic electrode A or B, it is noted limitations directed to a method of making the connection between the cell connector and the at least one first or second metallic electrode A or B are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114. Therefore, since the solar cell string in claim 21 is the same as the solar cell string disclosed by modified Suzuki, as set forth above, the claim is unpatentable even though the solar cell string of modified Suzuki was made by a different process. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (JP H05-067017; see English machine translation) in view of Morad et al. (US 2014/0124014) in view of Morad et al. (US 2015/0349703) (hereinafter Morad ‘703).
Regarding claim 10, modified Suzuki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose the first and at least one second photovoltaic solar cells of the solar cell string are configured as bifacial solar cells.
Morad ‘703 discloses the use of a transparent backsheet for a solar cel module using the solar cell string, such that bifacial operation of the solar module can be possible ([0158]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected bifacial solar cells to be used as the solar cells in modified Suzuki, as taught by Morad ‘703, so that conversion efficiency can be improved by using both sides of the solar cell due to their shingled configuration.
Claim(s) 1 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nekarda et al. (US 2021/0005773) in view of Morad et al. (US 2014/0124014).
Regarding claim 1, Nekarda discloses a solar cell string ([0056]; see Figure 5A), comprising a first photovoltaic solar cell A (solar cell 1a first from the left) and at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B (solar cell 1a second from the left), the first photovoltaic solar cell A having at least one first metallic electrode A (metallic back side; [0028]) and the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B having at least one second metallic electrode B (front side metallization 5), and the at least one first metallic electrode A being electrically conductively connected to the at least one second metallic electrode B by means of a cell connector (metal foil 3a) of the solar cell string ([0022]; see Figure 5A),
wherein the cell connector is a flexurally slack cell connector (see Figure 5A) and is formed as a foil monolayer ([0060]), which at least partly covers a side of the first photovoltaic solar cell A and the at least one first metallic electrode A in a cell connector covering region A (4a; see Figure 5A), and the cell connector is at least partly directly electrically conductively connected to the at least one first metallic electrode A in the cell connector covering region A (see Figure 5A),
the cell connector at least partly covers a side of the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B and the at least one second metallic electrode B in a cell connector covering region B (4a; see Figure 5A), and the cell connector is at least partly directly electrically conductively connected to the at least one second metallic electrode B in the cell connector covering region B (see Figure 5A),
the first photovoltaic solar cell A and at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B are arranged in an overlapping fashion (see Figure5A), such that a back-side overlap region of the back side of the first photovoltaic solar cell A is arranged over a front-side overlap region of the front side of the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B (see Figure 5A),
the at least one first metallic electrode A is arranged at the back side of the first photovoltaic solar cell A and is configured to conduct electrical charge carriers at the back side of the first photovoltaic solar cell A to the back-side overlap region or to conduct electrical charge carriers away from the back-side overlap region (as set forth above),
the at least one second metallic electrode B is arranged at the front side of the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B and is configured to conduct electrical charge carriers at the front side of the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B to the front-side overlap region or to conduct electrical charge carriers away from the front- side overlap region (as set forth above), and wherein,
the cell connector is arranged electrically conductively at the at least one first metallic electrode A in the back-side overlap region and electrically conductively at the at least one second metallic electrode B in the front-side overlap region (see Figure 5A),
the back-side overlap region and the cell connector covering region A are identical (see Figure 5A).
Nekarda further discloses cell connectors overlapping the solar cell by at least 1 mm at least at an edge in a cell connector overlap region ([0027]), but the reference does not expressly disclose at least one of the cell connector covering region A or the cell connector covering region B, has a width of less than 1000 µm.
Morad discloses in paragraph [0125] that the half width W1 of an interconnect can be approximately 1.5 mm, where it can be seen in Figures 4 and 5A less than half of the width of the interconnect overlaps with busbar 15, and paragraph [0085] states the width of bus bar 15 can be about 1.5 mm, where Figure 6C shows less than the full width of the bus bar is part of the cell connector covering region.
Morad also discloses the width of the bus bar 15 to be less than or equal to about 3 mm ([0085]) and the width of the back contact pad 30 to be less than or equal to about 3 mm ([0086]), where the width of the bus bar and the width, number, spacing of fingers on the front surface may be varied depending on the intensity of solar radiation to be concentrated on the solar cell ([0085]).
Therefore, as the overall collection efficiency and amount of shading from the bus bar on the front surface are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said width of the bus bar, with both said collection efficiency and the amount of shading increasing as the width of the bus bar is increased, the precise width of the bus bar and thus, the width of the connector covering region, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed width of the connector covering region cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the width of the bus bar and thus, the width of the connector covering region in the apparatus of Nekarda to obtain the desired balance between the collection efficiency and the amount of shading on the front surface of the solar cell (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 21, Nekarda discloses a solar cell string ([0056]; see Figure 5A), comprising a first photovoltaic solar cell A (solar cell 1a first from the left) and at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B (solar cell 1a second from the left), the first photovoltaic solar cell A having at least one first metallic electrode A (metallic back side; [0028]) and the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B having at least one second metallic electrode B (front side metallization 5), and the at least one first metallic electrode A being electrically conductively connected to the at least one second metallic electrode B by means of a cell connector (metal foil 3a) of the solar cell string ([0022]; see Figure 5A),
wherein the cell connector is a flexurally slack cell connector (see Figure 5A), which at least partly covers a side of the first photovoltaic solar cell A and the at least one first metallic electrode A in a cell connector covering region A (4a; see Figure 5A), and the cell connector is at least partly directly electrically conductively laser metal bonded to the at least one first metallic electrode A in the cell connector covering region A ([0060]; see Figure 5A),
the cell connector at least partly covers a side of the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B and the at least one second metallic electrode B in a cell connector covering region B (4a; see Figure 5A), and the cell connector is at least partly directly electrically conductively laser metal bonded to the at least one second metallic electrode B in the cell connector covering region B ([0060]; see Figure 5A),
the first photovoltaic solar cell A and at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B are arranged in an overlapping fashion (see Figure5A), such that a back-side overlap region of the back side of the first photovoltaic solar cell A is arranged over a front-side overlap region of the front side of the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B (see Figure 5A),
the at least one first metallic electrode A is arranged at the back side of the first photovoltaic solar cell A and is configured to conduct electrical charge carriers at the back side of the first photovoltaic solar cell A to the back-side overlap region or to conduct electrical charge carriers away from the back-side overlap region (as set forth above),
the at least one second metallic electrode B is arranged at the front side of the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B and is configured to conduct electrical charge carriers at the front side of the at least one second photovoltaic solar cell B to the front-side overlap region or to conduct electrical charge carriers away from the front- side overlap region (as set forth above), and wherein,
the cell connector is arranged electrically conductively at the at least one first metallic electrode A in the back-side overlap region and electrically conductively at the at least one second metallic electrode B in the front-side overlap region (see Figure 5A),
the back-side overlap region and the cell connector covering region A are identical (see Figure 5A).
Nekarda further discloses cell connectors overlapping the solar cell by at least 1 mm at least at an edge in a cell connector overlap region ([0027]), but the reference does not expressly disclose at least one of the cell connector covering region A or the cell connector covering region B, has a width of less than 1000 µm.
Morad discloses in paragraph [0125] that the half width W1 of an interconnect can be approximately 1.5 mm, where it can be seen in Figures 4 and 5A less than half of the width of the interconnect overlaps with busbar 15, and paragraph [0085] states the width of bus bar 15 can be about 1.5 mm, where Figure 6C shows less than the full width of the bus bar is part of the cell connector covering region.
Morad also discloses the width of the bus bar 15 to be less than or equal to about 3 mm ([0085]) and the width of the back contact pad 30 to be less than or equal to about 3 mm ([0086]), where the width of the bus bar and the width, number, spacing of fingers on the front surface may be varied depending on the intensity of solar radiation to be concentrated on the solar cell ([0085]).
Therefore, as the overall collection efficiency and amount of shading from the bus bar on the front surface are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said width of the bus bar, with both said collection efficiency and the amount of shading increasing as the width of the bus bar is increased, the precise width of the bus bar and thus, the width of the connector covering region, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed width of the connector covering region cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the width of the bus bar and thus, the width of the connector covering region in the apparatus of Nekarda to obtain the desired balance between the collection efficiency and the amount of shading on the front surface of the solar cell (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that claims 1 and 2 have been amended to address the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues. However, it is noted the same issue in claim 1 is presented in newly added claim 21, and the issue in claim 2 remains because it is still a broad limitation followed by a narrow limitation, as set forth above.
Applicant argues that Suzuki explicitly discloses something structurally different because the interconnector is a “flexible printed circuit board” and is not a foil monolayer as claimed. However, Suzuki explicitly discloses the flexible printed circuit board comprises a copper foil 30a, which is also stated by Applicant on page 12 of the Remarks, where the copper foil reads upon the “cell connector” as claimed.
Applicant further argues new claim 21 requires a laser metal bond that imparts specific structure different from soldering in which it has the advantage of lower thermal stress during the interconnecting of solar cells as well as less material requirements. However, it is noted that “lower thermal stress during the interconnecting of solar cells” is not a structural difference and “less material requirements” is a relative amount without any specifics or factual basis, such that it does not appear the product by process limitation imparts any structural difference between one that uses soldering and one that users laser metal bonding.
Therefore, the arguments were not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights