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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 12-20 have been withdrawn are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected (Invention II, claims 12-15, and Invention III, claims 16-20), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 09/30/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
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, 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0240985 A1, Hashimoto.
Regarding claim 1
Hashimoto teaches a photovoltaic module (100) [Fig. 1 and para. 0029], comprising:
a solar cell string (1) comprising solar cells (solar cells 10 including photoelectric conversion body 20) which are arranged in parallel along a length direction of the photovoltaic module (100) [Figs. 1 and 2, paras. 0030 and 0040-0041]; and
electrode lines (corresponding to copper foils 11a of wiring members 11) [Figs. 1 and 5, para. 0053], each of the electrode lines (11a) being located on a side of a corresponding solar cell (10) and configured to connect adjacent solar cells (10) [Figs. 1, 2, 4 and 5, paras. 0030 and 0032],
wherein soldering regions (corresponding to regions denoted as “SR” in Fig. 5 below) are arranged on a side of each of the solar cells (10) facing the electrode lines (11a) [Fig. 5, paras. 0032 and 0053], and arranged apart along the length direction of the photovoltaic module (100) [Figs. 1, 5 and 11, para. 0054], the electrode lines (11a) are connected to the soldering regions (SR) [Fig. 5], connecting members (corresponding to conductor 11b comprising, for example, SnAgCu solder, and metal thin film 11c) are arranged between the soldering regions (SR) and the electrode lines (11a) [Fig. 5 and para. 0053], the electrode lines (11a) are connected to the soldering regions (SR) through the connecting members (11b) [Fig. 5 and para. 0058], and each of the connecting members comprises a first region (denoted as “R1” in Fig. 1 below, R1 corresponding to the solder joint between the electrode line 11 and bus bar 40) and a second region (denoted as “R2” in Fig. 5 below, R2 corresponding to the portions of 11b and 11c around the first region, R1, outside the solder joint), wherein the second region (R2) is arranged around the first region (R1) [Fig. 5].
PNG
media_image1.png
490
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
490
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5
With regards to the limitation “wherein the second region is arranged around the first region, and transparency of the second region is greater than transparency of the first region”, Hashimoto discloses that conductor 11b has a thickness of 40 µm at a center portion and the thickness thereof becomes smaller from the center portion toward end portions [para. 0054]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have found obvious for the transparency of the thinner second regions (R2) of the connecting members (11b) to be greater than that of the thicker center/first regions (R1).
Furthermore, during the soldering process, the resin adhesive material (12), soldering material (11b) and metal particles from (11c) are all melted to form a solder joint and the rest of the material flowed towards the surround region, where solvent is vaporized and form a second region [para. 0081], therefore the density of material in the second region is less than that of the first region, hence transparency in the second region increased.
Regarding claim 3
Hashimoto teaches the photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein the second region (R2) has a surface pore density less than a surface pore density of the first region (in the region R1, the wiring member 11 and the bus bar electrode 40 are electrically connected together by particles 13 embedded in metal thin film 11c and conductor 11b) [Fig. 5 and paras. 0082-0083].
Regarding claim 11
Hashimoto teaches the photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein the first region (R1) is provided with a solder paste (corresponding to solder paste 11b) [Fig. 5 and paras. 0053-0054].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto as applied to claims 1, 3 and 11 above, and further in view of US 2003/0024733 A1, Aoyama et al. (hereinafter “Aoyama”).
Regarding claim 2
Hashimoto does not teach the second region having a width less than or equal to 30 µm.
Aoyama teaches a connecting member (plating 12 of wiring/connection lead 14) comprising a first region (center region/solder joint) and a second region (see region surrounding center portion B) [Fig. 1 and para. 0051], wherein when the width of the second region increases (i.e., the solder flows out to a portion outside the predetermined region), the surface of the solar cell will be partially covered with the solder, thereby lowering the power output efficiency of the solar battery [Figs. 1 and 7B, paras. 0012 and 0056]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adjust the width of the second region such that the desired bond strength is achieved while reducing a coverage of the solar cell surface by the solder.
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the width of the second region (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired bond strength and power output efficiency. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4
The prior art of record does not teach the limitation “wherein at least one recessed portion is arranged on a surface of the first region” in the context of other limitations recited in the claims.
Fig. 5 of Hashimoto shows the wiring member (11) having a smooth, continuous, convex surface. Hashimoto does not teach, or fairly suggest, a recessed portion on a surface of the first region. Aoyama does not alleviate the deficiencies in Hashimoto. Accordingly, the claim is allowed.
Regarding claims 5-10
Claims 5-10 are allowed for their dependency on claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130298988 A1, Fukuda et al. teaches a photovoltaic module (solar battery) [Fig. 1 and para. 0034], comprising:
a solar cell string comprising solar cells (8) [Fig. 1 and para. 00035]; and
electrode lines (corresponding to wires 12 and 13) [Fig. 1 and para. 0036], each of the electrode lines (12 and 13) being located on a side of a corresponding solar cell (8) and configured to connect adjacent solar cells (8) [Fig. 1 and para. 0036],
wherein soldering regions (solder joint between 12/13 and electrodes 6/7) are arranged on a side of each of the solar cells (8) facing the electrode lines (12 and 13) [Figs. 8(a)-8(d) and para. 0095], the electrode lines (12 and 13) are connected to the soldering regions (51) [Figs. 1 and 8(a)-8(d)], connecting members (corresponding to conductive adhesive material 53) are arranged between the soldering regions and the electrode lines (12 and 13) [Figs. 1 and 8(a)-8(d)], the electrode lines (12 and 13) are connected to the soldering regions through the connecting members (53) [Figs. 8(a)-8(d) and para. 0095], and each of the connecting members comprises a first region (d corresponding to the solder joint between the electrode lines 12 and 13 and electrodes 6 and 7) and a second region (corresponding to the portions around the first region, outside the solder joint), wherein the second region is arranged around the first region [Figs. 8(a)-8(d) and para. 0095].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721