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 1-19 are currently pending.
Claim 1 has been amended
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/16/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance. This action is made final.
Status of Rejections Pending
since The Office Action of 09/24/2025
The examiner modified the rejection below to address claim amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Fukushima et al (PG Pub 20100294329).
Regarding claim 1, Fukushima et al teaches a solar cell comprising a solar cell string comprising a plurality of solar cells [fig 11c para 106] wherein each solar cells comprises:
a semiconductor substrate 11; a first electrode formed on a first surface of the semiconductor substrate; and a second electrode formed on a back surface of the semiconductor substrate [fig 11c para 43], wherein the plurality of solar cells comprises a first solar cell and a second solar cell adjacent to the first solar cell, and the first electrode of the first solar cell is connected to the second electrode of the second solar cell by a plurality of leads 10a [fig 11c para 43],
wherein each lead 10a comprises: a first section connected to the first electrode of the first solar cell, a second section connected to the second electrode of the second solar cell, and a third section connecting the first section and second section, wherein the third section comprises a first bent portion and a second bent portion [fig 11c see drawing below],
wherein the first bent portion has an arc shape convex toward the front surface of the semiconductor substrate of the first solar cell, the arc shape having a gradually reduced radius of curvature and a part extending from a connection point with the first section in a direction away from the first solar cell in thickness direction [fig 11c see drawing below] , and
wherein the second bent portion has an arc shape convex toward the back surface of the back surface of the semiconductor substrate of the second solar cell, the arc shape having a gradually reduced radius of curvature and a part extending from a connection point with the second section in a direction away from the second solar cell in thickness direction [fig 11c see drawing below].
the first bent portion is spaced apart from and not in contact with the front surface of the semiconductor substrate of the first solar cell in thickness direction and the second bent portion is spaced apart from and not in contact with the back surface of the second solar cell in the thickness direction [fig 11c see drawing below]
PNG
media_image1.png
360
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
364
816
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 2-6, 9, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima et al (PG Pub 20100294329), and further in view of Kobamoto (PG pub 20140338719).
Regarding claim 2, Fukushima et al teaches the first electrode comprises a plurality of finger lines extending in a first direction and a plurality of bus electrodes extending in a second direction crossing the first direction [fig 1]. However, Fukushima et al does not teach the bus electrode having pad section as claimed.
Kobamoto teaches a solar cell comprising each of the bus electrodes (11, 13) comprises a plurality of pad sections 11 arranged to be spaced apart from one another in the second direction and a line section 13 connecting the plurality of pad sections in the second direction while having a smaller width than the plurality of pad sections in the first direction [fig 11A-B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the bus electrode of Fukushima et al to have the pad section and line section as taught by Kobamoto for electrical connection 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).
Regarding claim 3, modified Fukushima et al teaches the plurality of pad sections comprise: first pad sections having a length in the second direction greater than that of the second pad section wherein the first pad sections are disposed at the opposite ends of the bus bar lines in the second direction [fig 10A], and the second pad sections are disposed at an inside region of the bus bar line to be spaced apart from the first pad sections [fig 10A]
Regarding claim 4, modified Fukushima et al teaches each solar cell further comprises a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge, and the plurality of finger lines comprise a first finger line closest to the first edge and a second finger line closest to the second edge, and wherein each bus electrode has a distance between the two first pad sections smaller than a distance between the first finger line and the second finger line [fig 1, ‘396, fig 10A, Kobamoto].
Regarding claim 5, modified Fukushima et al teaches each solar cell further comprises a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge, and the plurality of finger lines comprise a first finger line closest to the first edge and a second finger line closest to the second edge, and wherein a first edge distance between the first edge and one of the two first pad sections adjacent thereto is greater than a distance between the first edge and the first finger line [fig 1, ‘396, fig 10A, Kobamoto].
Regarding claim 6, a second edge distance between the second edge and the other of the two first pad sections adjacent thereto is greater than a distance between the second edge and the second finger line [fig 1, ‘396, fig 10A, Kobamoto].
Regarding claim 9, modified Fukushima et al teaches each lead has a width greater than a width of the line section of any bus electrode in the first solar cell [fig 10A-B, Kobamoto].
Regarding claim 10, the first section of each of the plurality of leads is disposed on a corresponding one of the plurality of bus electrodes, and has a lower portion attached to the plurality of pad sections of the corresponding bus electrode, and wherein a width in the first direction of the lower portion is smaller than the width in the first direction of each of the plurality pad sections [[fig 1, ‘396, fig 4A-B, Kobamoto].
Regarding claim 13,modified Fukushima et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Fukushima et al does not teach the width of the line section as claimed.
Kobamoto teaches the width in the first direction of the line section is greater than a half of a width of any of the plurality of finger lines and is smaller than 10 times of the width of any of the plurality of finger lines [para 47, Kobamoto]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the width of the line section and finger lines to be the same of Kobamoto for reducing the amount of electrode material use [para 47].
Regarding claim 20, the first bent portion is spaced apart from the front surface of the semiconductor substrate of the first solar cell in a thickness direction of the first solar cell [fig 2].
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima et al (PG Pub 20100294329) and Kobamoto (PG pub 20140338719) and further in view of Karakida et al (JP2003258277. English translation is provided).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Fukushima et al teaches a second edge distance between the other of the first pad sections and a second edge of the solar cell adjacent thereto is greater than a distance between a second outermost one of the finger lines, which is adjacent to the second edge, and the second edge [fig 11A], but modified Fukushima et al does not teach the edge distance as claimed.
Karakida et al teaches and edge distance being from 4mm to 15mm which is within claimed range [para 69, Karakida et al] where the edge distance is defined between one end of the one of the bus bar and edge of the solar cell adjacent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the edge distance of Modified Fukushima et al to be the same of Karakida et al for preventing cracking and suppress the decrease in efficiency of solar cell [para 66 69]. According to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima et al (PG Pub 20100294329) and Kobamoto (PG pub 20140338719) and further in view of Gray et al (PG pub 20100000602).
Regarding claim 8, modified Fukushima et al teaches each solar cell further comprises a third edge and a fourth edge opposite the third edge in the first direction, each finger line comprises a first end adjacent to the third edge and a second end adjacent to the fourth edge, and the plurality of bus electrodes comprise a first bus electrode closest to the third edge and a second bus electrode closest to the fourth edge. However, modified Fukushima et al does not teach a distance between the first end of the finger line and the first bus electrode is greater than a pitch of each bus electrode other than the first bus electrode and the second bus electrode.
Gray et al teaches a solar cell comprising a distance between the first end of the finger line and the first bus electrode is greater than a pitch of each bus electrode other than the first bus electrode and the second bus electrode [fig 2B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify distance between the first end of the finger line and the first bus electrode to be the same of Gray et al such that distance between the first end of the finger line and the first bus electrode is greater than a pitch of each bus electrode other than the first bus electrode and the second bus electrode 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).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima et al (PG Pub 20100294329) and Kobamoto (PG pub 20140338719) and further in view of Rubin et al (Pat No.7432438).
Regarding claim 11, modified Fukushima et al teaches the first section of each of the plurality of leads is disposed on a corresponding one of the plurality of bus electrodes, and has a lower portion attached to the plurality of pad sections of the corresponding bus electrode [fig 11A-B, Kobamoto]. However, modified Fukushima et al does not teach a width in the first direction of the lower portion is greater than a width in the first direction of the third section.
Rubin et al teaches a PV cell comprising a wiring 5’ with core 1 and coating 2 and after heat treating the coating 2 having a width which is larger than width of the leads [fig 1 2]. Also, Rubin et al teaches a portion of the leads in contact with the plurality of pad sections has a width larger than the width of the leads, and the width on the core is uniform and a width of the solder coating layer in contact with the plurality of pad sections is extended [fig 1-2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the wiring of modified Fukushima et al to be included core and solder and be bonded to the bus bar, pad by heating treatment such that a width of the solder coating layer becomes larger than the width of the leads in a region where the leads are adjacent to the plurality of pad sections for decreasing contact resistance (col 2 lines 20-24). As for combination, a width in the first direction of the lower portion is greater than a width in the first direction of the third section.
Regarding claim 12, modified ‘Fukushima et al teaches a PV cell comprising a wiring 5’ with core 1 and coating 2 and after heat treating the coating 2 having a width which is larger than width of the leads [fig 1 2]. Also, Rubin et al teaches a portion of the leads in contact with the plurality of pad sections has a width larger than the width of the leads, and the width on the core is uniform and a width of the solder coating layer in contact with the plurality of pad sections is extended [fig 1-2 see drawing below]. Also, Rubin et al teaches a first thickness of the solder coating layer of the portion of the leads in contact with the plurality of pad sections is greater between a first surface of the core and each pad section than a second thickness of the solder coating layer on a second surface of the core opposite the core from the first surface of the core [fig. 1]
PNG
media_image3.png
507
828
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 14-15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 103782396, and Kobamoto (PG pub 20140338719) and further in view of Williams et al (PG pub 2090159114).
Regarding claim 14, modified Fukushima et al teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but modified ‘396 does not teach line breaking section.
Williams et al teaches a solar cell comprising finger line such that a line breaking section, at which a finger line of the plurality of finger lines arranged between two neighboring bus electrodes is broken at respective parts thereof without extending continuously [fig 8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the finger line of modified Fukushima et al to have the line breaking section as taught by Williams et al for preventing cracking and pressure.
Regarding claim 15, modified Fukushima et al teaches a width of the line breaking section is 0.5 times or more of a pitch of each finger line, or 0.5 times or less of a pitch of each bus electrode [fig 8].
Regarding claim 19, modified Fukushima et al teaches the claimed limitation as set for above, but modified Fukushima et al does not teach 6 bus electrodes and 6 leads as claimed.
Williams et al teaches a solar cell comprising plurality of conductive elements (more than 6) which is considered to be bus bar lines [fig 8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to duplicate the bus bar lines of modified Fukushima et al to be 6 or more bus electrode as taught by Degroot et al since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a devices involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima et al (PG Pub 20100294329), and Kobamoto (PG pub 20140338719) and further in view of Fuji et al (PG pub 20070095387).
Regarding claim 16-17, modified Fukushima et al teaches the finger line of the plurality of finger lines comprises a first portion and a second portion and the first portion is arranged between two neighboring bus electrodes [fig 1-2]. However, modified Fukushima et al does not teach second portion being greater than the first portion.
Fuji et al teaches a solar cell module comprising a finger electrode being connected to the bus bar electrode and only a portion where the finger electrode is connected to the bus bar electrode includes an extended coating layer 14 [fig 8a]. Also, Fuji et al teaches the width of the first portion gradually increases toward the two neighboring electrodes [fig 4 8A].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the finger lines of modified Fukushima et al to have a coating at the bus bar electrode for bonding. As for combination, the finger line of the plurality of finger lines comprises a first portion and a second portion and the first portion is arranged between two neighboring bus electrodes and second portion being greater than the first portion wherein the width of the first portion gradually increases toward the two neighboring electrodes.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukushima et al (PG Pub 20100294329) and Kobamoto (PG pub 20140338719) and further in view of WO 2013014810, hereinafter as ‘810.
Regarding claim 18, modified Fukushima et al teaches the lead as set forth above, but modified Fukushima et al does not teach the width of the third section of the lead.
‘810 teaches PV modules comprising a wiring 11 having width of 0.2 mm (invention section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the width of the lead of modified Fukushima et al to be the same of ‘810 since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component.
Alternatively rejection:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Feinberg (Pat No. 4636578)
Regarding claim 1, Feinberg teaches a solar cell module comprising a solar cell string comprising a plurality of solar cells [fig 1-3] wherein each solar cells comprises:
a semiconductor substrate 12; a first electrode formed on a first surface of the semiconductor substrate; and a second electrode formed on a back surface of the semiconductor substrate (it is noted that the solar cell included front and back electrode for series connection) [fig 1-4], wherein the plurality of solar cells comprises a first solar cell and a second solar cell adjacent to the first solar cell, and the first electrode of the first solar cell is connected to the second electrode of the second solar cell by a plurality of leads 13 [fig 1-4],
wherein each lead 13 comprises: a first section connected to the first electrode of the first solar cell, a second section connected to the second electrode of the second solar cell, and a third section connecting the first section and second section, wherein the third section comprises a first bent portion and a second bent portion [fig 1-4],
wherein the first bent portion has an arc shape convex toward the front surface of the semiconductor substrate of the first solar cell, the arc shape having a gradually reduced radius of curvature and a part extending from a connection point with the first section in a direction away from the first solar cell in thickness direction [fig 11c1-4], and
wherein the second bent portion has an arc shape convex toward the back surface of the back surface of the semiconductor substrate of the second solar cell, the arc shape having a gradually reduced radius of curvature and a part extending from a connection point with the second section in a direction away from the second solar cell in thickness direction [fig 1-4].
the first bent portion is spaced apart from and not in contact with the front surface of the semiconductor substrate of the first solar cell in thickness direction and the second bent portion is spaced apart from and not in contact with the back surface of the second solar cell in the thickness direction [fig 1-4]
PNG
media_image4.png
614
908
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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) 2-6, 9, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feinberg (Pat No. 4636578), and further in view of Kobamoto (PG pub 20140338719).
Regarding claim 2, Feinberg teaches the first electrode comprises a plurality of finger lines [fig 5] extending in a first direction. However, Fukushima et al does not teach the bus electrode having pad section as claimed.
Kobamoto teaches a solar cell comprising each of the bus electrodes (11, 13) comprises a plurality of pad sections 11 arranged to be spaced apart from one another in the second direction and a line section 13 connecting the plurality of pad sections in the second direction while having a smaller width than the plurality of pad sections in the first direction [fig 11A-B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the solar cell of Feinberg by the solar cell of Kobamoto for high long-term reliability [par 4] 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).
Regarding claim 3, modified Feinberg teaches the plurality of pad sections comprise: first pad sections having a length in the second direction greater than that of the second pad section wherein the first pad sections are disposed at the opposite ends of the bus bar lines in the second direction [fig 10A], and the second pad sections are disposed at an inside region of the bus bar line to be spaced apart from the first pad sections [fig 10A]
Regarding claim 4, modified Feinberg teaches each solar cell further comprises a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge, and the plurality of finger lines comprise a first finger line closest to the first edge and a second finger line closest to the second edge, and wherein each bus electrode has a distance between the two first pad sections smaller than a distance between the first finger line and the second finger line [ fig 10A, Kobamoto].
Regarding claim 5, modified Feinberg teaches each solar cell further comprises a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge, and the plurality of finger lines comprise a first finger line closest to the first edge and a second finger line closest to the second edge, and wherein a first edge distance between the first edge and one of the two first pad sections adjacent thereto is greater than a distance between the first edge and the first finger line [fig 1, ‘396, fig 10A, Kobamoto].
Regarding claim 6, a second edge distance between the second edge and the other of the two first pad sections adjacent thereto is greater than a distance between the second edge and the second finger line [, fig 10A, Kobamoto].
Regarding claim 9, modified Feinberg teaches each lead has a width greater than a width of the line section of any bus electrode in the first solar cell [fig 10A-B, Kobamoto].
Regarding claim 10, the first section of each of the plurality of leads is disposed on a corresponding one of the plurality of bus electrodes, and has a lower portion attached to the plurality of pad sections of the corresponding bus electrode, and wherein a width in the first direction of the lower portion is smaller than the width in the first direction of each of the plurality pad sections [, fig 4A-B, Kobamoto].
Regarding claim 13,modified Feinberg teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Fukushima et al does not teach the width of the line section as claimed.
Kobamoto teaches the width in the first direction of the line section is greater than a half of a width of any of the plurality of finger lines and is smaller than 10 times of the width of any of the plurality of finger lines [para 47, Kobamoto]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the width of the line section and finger lines to be the same of Kobamoto for reducing the amount of electrode material use [para 47].
Regarding claim 20, the first bent portion is spaced apart from the front surface of the semiconductor substrate of the first solar cell in a thickness direction of the first solar cell [fig 1-4].
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feinberg (Pat No. 4636578) and Kobamoto (PG pub 20140338719) and further in view of Karakida et al (JP2003258277. English translation is provided).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Feinberg teaches a second edge distance between the other of the first pad sections and a second edge of the solar cell adjacent thereto is greater than a distance between a second outermost one of the finger lines, which is adjacent to the second edge, and the second edge [fig 11A], but modified Feinberg does not teach the edge distance as claimed.
Karakida et al teaches and edge distance being from 4mm to 15mm which is within claimed range [para 69, Karakida et al] where the edge distance is defined between one end of the one of the bus bar and edge of the solar cell adjacent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the edge distance of Modified Feinberg et al to be the same of Karakida et al for preventing cracking and suppress the decrease in efficiency of solar cell [para 66 69]. According to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feinberg (Pat No. 4636578) and Kobamoto (PG pub 20140338719) and further in view of Gray et al (PG pub 20100000602).
Regarding claim 8, modified Feinberg teaches each solar cell further comprises a third edge and a fourth edge opposite the third edge in the first direction, each finger line comprises a first end adjacent to the third edge and a second end adjacent to the fourth edge, and the plurality of bus electrodes comprise a first bus electrode closest to the third edge and a second bus electrode closest to the fourth edge. However, modified Fukushima et al does not teach a distance between the first end of the finger line and the first bus electrode is greater than a pitch of each bus electrode other than the first bus electrode and the second bus electrode.
Gray et al teaches a solar cell comprising a distance between the first end of the finger line and the first bus electrode is greater than a pitch of each bus electrode other than the first bus electrode and the second bus electrode [fig 2B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify distance between the first end of the finger line and the first bus electrode to be the same of Gray et al such that distance between the first end of the finger line and the first bus electrode is greater than a pitch of each bus electrode other than the first bus electrode and the second bus electrode 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).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feinberg (Pat No. 4636578) and Kobamoto (PG pub 20140338719) and further in view of Rubin et al (Pat No.7432438).
Regarding claim 11, modified Feinberg teaches the first section of each of the plurality of leads is disposed on a corresponding one of the plurality of bus electrodes, and has a lower portion attached to the plurality of pad sections of the corresponding bus electrode [fig 11A-B, Kobamoto]. However, modified Fukushima et al does not teach a width in the first direction of the lower portion is greater than a width in the first direction of the third section.
Rubin et al teaches a PV cell comprising a wiring 5’ with core 1 and coating 2 and after heat treating the coating 2 having a width which is larger than width of the leads [fig 1 2]. Also, Rubin et al teaches a portion of the leads in contact with the plurality of pad sections has a width larger than the width of the leads, and the width on the core is uniform and a width of the solder coating layer in contact with the plurality of pad sections is extended [fig 1-2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the wiring of modified Feinberg to be included core and solder and be bonded to the bus bar, pad by heating treatment such that a width of the solder coating layer becomes larger than the width of the leads in a region where the leads are adjacent to the plurality of pad sections for decreasing contact resistance (col 2 lines 20-24). As for combination, a width in the first direction of the lower portion is greater than a width in the first direction of the third section.
Regarding claim 12, modified ‘Feinberg teaches a PV cell comprising a wiring 5’ with core 1 and coating 2 and after heat treating the coating 2 having a width which is larger than width of the leads [fig 1 2]. Also, Feinberg teaches a portion of the leads in contact with the plurality of pad sections has a width larger than the width of the leads, and the width on the core is uniform and a width of the solder coating layer in contact with the plurality of pad sections is extended [fig 1-2 see drawing below Rubin]. Also, Feinberg teaches a first thickness of the solder coating layer of the portion of the leads in contact with the plurality of pad sections is greater between a first surface of the core and each pad section than a second thickness of the solder coating layer on a second surface of the core opposite the core from the first surface of the core [fig. 1 Rubin]
PNG
media_image3.png
507
828
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 14-15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feinberg (Pat No. 4636578), and Kobamoto (PG pub 20140338719) and further in view of Williams et al (PG pub 2090159114).
Regarding claim 14, modified Feinberg teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but modified Feinberg does not teach line breaking section.
Williams et al teaches a solar cell comprising finger line such that a line breaking section, at which a finger line of the plurality of finger lines arranged between two neighboring bus electrodes is broken at respective parts thereof without extending continuously [fig 8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the finger line of modified Fukushima et al to have the line breaking section as taught by Williams et al for preventing cracking and pressure.
Regarding claim 15, modified Feinberg teaches a width of the line breaking section is 0.5 times or more of a pitch of each finger line, or 0.5 times or less of a pitch of each bus electrode [fig 8].
Regarding claim 19, modified Feinberg teaches the claimed limitation as set for above, but modified ‘396 does not teach 6 bus electrodes and 6 leads as claimed.
Williams et al teaches a solar cell comprising plurality of conductive elements (more than 6) which is considered to be bus bar lines [fig 8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to duplicate the bus bar lines of modified Fukushima et al to be 6 or more bus electrode as taught by Degroot et al since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a devices involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feinberg (Pat No. 4636578), and Kobamoto (PG pub 20140338719) and further in view of Fuji et al (PG pub 20070095387).
Regarding claim 16-17, modified Feinberg teaches the finger line of the plurality of finger lines comprises a first portion and a second portion and the first portion is arranged between two neighboring bus electrodes [fig 1-2]. However, modified Feinberg does not teach second portion being greater than the first portion.
Fuji et al teaches a solar cell module comprising a finger electrode being connected to the bus bar electrode and only a portion where the finger electrode is connected to the bus bar electrode includes an extended coating layer 14 [fig 8a]. Also, Fuji et al teaches the width of the first portion gradually increases toward the two neighboring electrodes [fig 4 8A].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the finger lines of modified Feinberg to have a coating at the bus bar electrode for bonding. As for combination, the finger line of the plurality of finger lines comprises a first portion and a second portion and the first portion is arranged between two neighboring bus electrodes and second portion being greater than the first portion wherein the width of the first portion gradually increases toward the two neighboring electrodes.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feinberg (Pat No. 4636578) and Kobamoto (PG pub 20140338719) and further in view of WO 2013014810, hereinafter as ‘810.
Regarding claim 18, modified Feinberg teaches the lead as set forth above, but modified Feinberg does not teach the width of the third section of the lead.
‘810 teaches PV modules comprising a wiring 11 having width of 0.2 mm (invention section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the width of the lead of modified Feinberg to be the same of ‘810 since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues in substance:
Fukushima's bends follow the surfaces, are in contact with adhesive/cell surfaces, do not rise away or leave a gap, and show no indication of a gradually reduced radius of curvature. Nothing in Fukushima describes or suggests free-standing arched bends spaced away in the thickness direction. Also, Fukushima Does Not Disclose "Arc Shape Having a Gradually Reduced Radius of Curvature" and space apart from the surfaces.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Fukushima teaches the first and second bend portion having arch shape with gradually reduced radius of curvature and away from front surface of solar cell in the thickness direction [fig 11 see drawing below]
PNG
media_image5.png
422
833
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Feinberg's Interconnects Are Embedded, Not Free-Standing Bent Portions.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Feinberg teaches the bent portion as claimed. It is noted that the claimed does not require method of making the interconnects. The claim requires the shape of the interconnect which Feinberg teaches.
Feinberg Does Not Disclose "Gradually Reduced Radius of Curvature"
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Feiberg teaches the first and second bent portion having gradually reduced radius of curvature as set forth above [see drawing above].
Feinberg Does Not Disclose Bent Portions "Spaced Apart" or "Extending Away" in the Thickness Direction
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Feiberg teaches the first and second bent portion being space apart or extending away in the thickness direction [see drawing above].
Neither Fukushima nor Feinberg describes or suggests bent portions having gradually changing curvature, bent portions spaced apart from the respective solar cell surfaces, bent portions extending away from those surfaces in the thickness direction, or any comparable three-dimensional lead geometry.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Fukushima and Feinberg teach the claim limitation as set forth above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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