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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-16 are currently pending.
Claim 1 has been amended
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/24/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance. This action is made final.
Status of Rejections Pending
since The Office Action of 07/23/2025
The examiner modified the rejection below to address claim amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Peterson et al (PG Pub 20200007074)) and further in view of de Vries et al (PG pub 20190245478) and Terashita (WO2020054129)
Regarding claim 1, Peterson et al teaches a PV module comprising several serially connected IBC solar cells herein each solar cell 642,644,646) has an electrode structure [fig 6C] comprising:
both a P-type contact electrode structure including at least one P-busbar and an N-type contact electrode structure including at least one N-busbar on the back side of the respective IBC solar cell [fig 6C para 62-63],
at least two of the IBC solar cells are arranged relative to each other in a partly overlapping manner (on the side direction) [fig 6C]
at least sections of both the at least one P-busbar and the at least one N-busbar of the electrode structure of said first solar cell are located outside of the overlap region [fig 2 6C]. fig 2 show the cell having busbar and being connected.
electrical contacts 648 that form the serial connection between the first IBC solar cell and the second solar cell are located completely on or adjacent to the back side of the first solar cell and the second solar cell [fig 6C]
Peterson et al teaches the claimed limitation, but Peterson et al does not teach the solar cell being IBC solar cell.
Terashita teaches a back contact solar cell comprising several serially connected IBC solar cells herein each IBC solar cell has an electrode structure (28.38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the solar cells of Peterson et al to be IBC solar cell since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Modified Peterson et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Peterson et al does not teach a first region of a back side of a first IBC solar cell being arranged directly on top of a first region of a front side of a second IBC solar cell and thus creates an overlap region.
Vries et al teaches a solar tile having the a first region of a back side of a first solar cell being arranged directly on top of a first region of a front side of a second solar cell and thus creates an overlap regio [fig 8A-8C]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have two edges of the two cells being directly overlapped each other in serial connection as taught by Vries et al for saving space and the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
As for combination, a first region of a back side of a first IBC solar cell being arranged directly on top of a first region of a front side of a second IBC solar cell and thus creates an overlap region.
PNG
media_image1.png
668
886
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, modified Peterson et al teaches said P-type contact electrode structure and said N-type contact electrode structure each comprise substructures (38f,28f) that are parallel to each other [fig 3, Tereshita]
Regarding claim 3, modified Peterson et al teaches said substructures of the P-type contact electrode structure that are parallel to each other and said substructures of the N- type contact electrode substructure that are parallel to each other are configured in an at least partly interdigitated pattern on the back side of the respective IBC solar cell [fig 1 3 Tereshita]
Regarding claim 4, modified Peterson et al teaches the entire electrode structure of the first IBC solar cell is located completely outside of the overlap region [fig fig 6C]].
Regarding claim 6, modified Peterson et al teaches the electrical contacts 648 that form the serial connection between the first IBC solar cell and the second IBC solar cell also provide the mechanical connection between the first IBC solar cell and the second IBC solar cell [fig. 6C].
Regarding claim 7, modified Peterson et al teaches the electrical contacts that form the serial connection between the first IBC solar cell and the second IBC solar cell are formed by metal bands [para 63]
Regarding claim 8, modified Peterson et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Peterson et al does not teach the electrical contacts that form the serial connection between the first IBC solar cell and the second IBC solar cell are formed by a locally conductive foil
Teresha teaches the electrical contacts that form the serial connection between the first IBC solar cell and the second IBC solar cell are formed by a locally conductive foil (copper foil).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the material of the electrical contact of modified Peterson et al to be the same material of Terashira since Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP2144.07).
Regarding claim 9, modified Peterson et al teaches the locally conductive foil forms the back side of the photovoltaic module [fig 2 5].
Regarding claim 10, modified Peterson et al teaches at least one of the at least one P-busbar 38 and the at least one N-busbar 28 runs orthogonal to an edge of the second IBC solar cell that defines the border of the overlap region [fig 3, Terashira].
Regarding claim 13, modified Peterson et al teaches the electrode structure of each of the first IBC solar cell and the second IBC solar cell , respectively, comprises at least two pairs of busbars each pair of busbars being formed by a P-busbar 38f and an N-busbar 28f running essentially parallel to each other and at a smaller distance from each other than from any other P-busbar or N-busbar belonging to said electrode structure [fig 2 3 5 Terashira]
Regarding claim 15, modified Peterson et al teaches at least one of the IBC solar cells has been cut so a edge, wherein the IBC solar cells are arranged in such an orientation that at least one of the edges forms a border of the first region of the second IBC solar cell such that it is shadowed by the first IBC solar cell [fig 2-3 5, Teresha fig 6C Peterson et al]. The recitation “ has been cut…cut edge” is the presence of process limitations on products claim, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965) Gardner v.TEC Systame, Inc. F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir.1984), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 830, 25 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al (PG Pub 20200007074)) and de Vries et al (PG pub 20190245478) and Terashita (WO2020054129) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Yoshikawa et al (JP2019117860, English translation is provided).
Regarding claim 11-12, modified Peterson et al teaches the first and second IBC solar cell as set forth above, but modified Peterson et al does not teach first or second IBD being inverted or rotated by 180 degrees.
Yoshikawa et al teaches plurality of solar cells 2 where one solar cell 2 is rotated or inverted by 180 degrees in respect with the adjacent solar cell 2 [fig 8 description section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the fist IBC solar cell of modified Peterson et al to be rotated 180 degree or inverted as taught by Yoshikawa et al for increasing production efficiency [description section].
The recitation “by performing… vice versa” is the presence of process limitations on products claim, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965) Gardner v.TEC Systame, Inc. F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir.1984), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 830, 25 USPQ 232 (1984).
As for combination, at least both the P-busbars and the N-busbars of the electrode structures of both the respective first IBC solar cell and the respective second IBC solar cell are arranged in such a way on the back side of these IBC solar cells that inverting a respective first or second IBC solar cell by performing a rotation by 180° around an axis that is located in the center of the plane defined by the respective waver on which the respective IBC solar cell is formed, said axis furthermore being orthogonal to said plane, moves the P-busbars into places in space that were previously occupied by N-busbars before said rotation and vice versa.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al (PG Pub 20200007074)) and de Vries et al (PG pub 20190245478) and Terashita (WO2020054129)) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Dong et al (CN106653878, English translation is provided).
Regarding claim 14, modified Peterson et al teaches the first and second IBC solar cell with bus bar as set forth above, but modified Peterson et al does not teach each of first and second IBC comprising exactly two pairs of busbars.
Dong et al teaches IBC solar cells with each solar cell comprising exactly two pair of busbar [fig 3 abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the electrode structure of first and second IBC solar cell of modified Peterson et al to have exactly two pairs of bus bar as taught by Dong et al for improving the efficiency of current collection.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al (PG Pub 20200007074)) and de Vries et al (PG pub 20190245478) and Terashita (WO2020054129) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Almy et al (PG pub 20180351502)
Regarding claim 16, modified Peterson et al teaches PV module with overlapped solar cell as set forth above, but modified Peterson et al does not teach first and second string having configuration as claimed.
Almy et al teaches solar arrays having plurality of string where first string is overlapped the second string [fig 2A para 66]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to duplicate the PV module of modified Peterson et al to be into plurality of strings where one PV string is overlapped other string as taught by Almy et al since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/24/2025 are deemed moot in view of the following new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims which significantly affected the scope thereof (i.e., by incorporating new limitations into the independent claims, which require further search and consideration).
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 UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726