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 § 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.
Claims 8, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (US 2011/0000535) in view of Bettinelli (WO 2021/239737 – see equivalent US 2023/0170431).
Regarding claim 8, Davidson discloses a photovoltaic module (abstract; Fig. 45) comprising a solar cell string group (10a and 10b in conjunction with the solar cells depicted above and below 10a and 10b in Fig. 45; [0137]), wherein the solar cell string group comprises solar cells (10a and 10b and the solar cells depicted above 10a and 10b in Fig. 45; [0137]), an edge portion of one side of a back surface of each of the solar cells in one direction is an insulating portion (a portion of the back surface of substrate 11 under 43 of the left end 12 in Figures 9 and 10 satisfies the limitation), the solar cells are connected to form solar cell strings (10a and 10b and the solar cells depicted above 10a and 10b in Fig 45; [0137]), and the solar cell strings are connected to form the solar cell string group (10a and 10b in conjunction with the solar cells above and below 10a and 10b in Fig. 45); wherein, in the solar cell string group, edge portions of adjacent solar cells in one direction are arranged in an overlapping manner ([0137] discloses overlapping of 10a and 10b which results in a portion of the back surface of the left edge of the substrate of 10a overlapped with a portion of the back surface of the left edge of the substrate of 10b); wherein, in the solar cell string group, along a first direction, the edge portion of the one side of the back surface of a solar cell of the solar cells is the insulating portion (a portion of the back surface of substrate 11 under 43 of the left end 12 in Figures 9 and 10 satisfies the limitation), and the edge portions of adjacent solar cells overlap with one another ([0137] discloses overlapping of 10a and 10b which results in a portion of the back surface of the left edge of the substrate of 10a overlapped with a portion of the back surface of the left edge of the substrate of 10b), the first direction is a width direction of the solar cell ([0140]; left end 12 of substrate 11), and along a second direction ([0140]; direction of 43 along bottom end 15 in Fig. 9), the edge portion of the one side of the back surface of the solar cell is the insulating portion (portion of the back surface of substrate 11 under 43 of the bottom end 15 in Figures 9 and 10 satisfies the limitation), and the edge portions of adjacent solar cell strings overlap with one another ([0135] discloses overlapping of 11a and 11b as depicted in Fig. 38 which results in the edge portions of adjacent solar cell strings overlapping with one another), and the second direction is a length direction of the solar cell ([0140]; direction of 43 along bottom end 15 in Fig. 9).
While Davidson does disclose the width of narrow peripheral band 43 is about 13 mm ([0146]), Davidson does not explicitly disclose a width of the insulating portion ranges from 2 mm to 3 mm.
It is noted, however, that the claim requires “an insulating portion,” therefore, any portion of the disclosed narrow peripheral band 43 satisfies the requirement for the claimed “an insulating portion,” including a portion of narrow peripheral band 43 which has a width ranging from 2 mm to 3 mm. Therefore, Davidson discloses a width of the insulating portion ranges from 2 mm to 3 mm.
Similarly, while Davidson discloses a thickness of the substrate is about 6 mm ([0153]), Davidson does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the insulating portion ranges from 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm. However, as noted above, the claim requires “an insulating portion,” therefore, any portion of the thickness of the disclosed substrate, which otherwise satisfies the limitations set forth in claim 8, satisfies the limitation “insulating portion,” including a portion of the substrate, adjacent to the back surface of the substrate, with a thickness ranging from 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm. Therefore, Davidson discloses a thickness of the insulating portion ranges from 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm.
Davidson does not explicitly disclose an overlapping size of adjacent solar cells ranges from 0.1 mm to 1.5 mm.
Bettinelli discloses a photovoltaic module ([0007]) and further discloses an overlapping size of adjacent solar cells results in unused surface area while achieving good electrical and mechanical reliability ([0005]). Bettinelli further discloses overlapping sizes of adjacent solar cells if 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 mm ([0094]).
As the photovoltaic surface area and mechanical reliability are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said overlapping size, with said photovoltaic surface area increasing and said mechanical reliability decreasing, as the overlapping size is decreased, the precise overlapping size would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed overlapping size cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the overlapping size in the apparatus of Davidson to obtain the desired balance between the photovoltaic surface area and mechanical reliability (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 15, modified Davidson discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Davidson further discloses along the first direction and the second direction, an outermost edge portion of an outermost solar cell is not the insulating portion (outermost edge portions on the top surfaces of the substrates of the outermost cells depicted in Fig. 45 are necessarily not the insulating portions, because the insulating portions are respective portions of the back surface of substrate 11 under 43 of the left and bottom ends in Figures 9 and 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 8 above).
Regarding claim 20, modified Davidson discloses all the claim limitations as set
forth above. Davidson further discloses the adjacent solar cells are connected by electrode lines (801 in Fig. 44; [0143]), and each of the electrode lines passing through a positive and negative grid line ([0143]) is coated with an insulating adhesive ([0142] – [0144], Figures 41 – 44; sealing member; it is noted that the limitation “coated” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components); and the adjacent solar cell strings are connected by busbars (802 in Fig. 44; note: stringers achieve electrical connections through ribbons or busbars).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the specific size relationship between the width of the insulating portion and the overlapping dimension between solar cells ensures that even if subsequent vibrations during the manufacturing process or thermal expansion and contraction during working process cause displacement between the solar cells, the insulation portion width ranging 2-3 mm is significantly greater than the overlapping size ranging 0.1 – 1.5 mm, and this size difference ensures insulation contact between the solar cells and maintaining the stable operating state of the solar cell.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Additionally, unexpected results must be established by factual evidence; mere
argument or conclusory statements in the specification do not suffice. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1977) (quoting In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Applicant’s assertions of unexpected results constitute mere argument (MPEP 716.01(c)). Mere conclusions in the as-filed specification and Applicant’s Remarks, without evidence in support of the assertions, are insufficient in showing the criticality of the claimed range. MPEP 716.02(d) II. states “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside of the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).” It is also well settled that where patentability is predicated upon a change in a condition of a prior art composition, such as a change in size, concentration or the like, the burden is on the applicant to establish with objective evidence that the change is critical, i.e., it leads to a new, unexpected result. In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 8, 15, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are not directed to the current rejection(s) set forth in this office action.
It is noted that the claim amendment overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection
set forth in the previous office action.
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 TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights