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 Interpretation
It is noted that the phrase “inflection point” is described in the as-filed specification as a point of a curve at which the sign of the curvature (i.e. the concavity) changes (paragraph [0041]).
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 1-3, 5-9, and 11-15 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. Specifically, lines 11 and 12 of claim 1 recite “a shape with a head and shoulders comprising two or more inflection points each between the head and one of the shoulders” however, the structure required to satisfy the limitation is unclear because the shape required to satisfy “a shape with a head and shoulders” is not defined. Additionally, the limitation requires shoulders comprising two or more inflection points each between the head and one of the shoulders, however, the manner in which the shoulders comprise two or more inflection points while each inflection point is between the head and one of the shoulders, which comprise the two or more inflection points, is unclear. Claims 2-3, 5-9, and 11-15 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sewell et al. (US 11,227,962).
Regarding claim 1, Sewell discloses a string of solar cells (Fig. 5) comprising first and second solar cells electrically connected in series (C11/L1), each solar cell comprising a silicon semiconductor substrate (C4/L24; C6/L63; C8/L16; C16/L30; C17/L29), an n-type doped region (C6/L52-53), and a p-type doped region (C6/L52-53); and a conductive wire in contact with the n-type doped region of the first solar cell and in contact with the p-type doped region of the second solar cell (C10/L33-36).
While Sewell does disclose the conductive wire at a point of contact with the n-type doped region of the first solar cell having a cross-sectional area perpendicular to a length of the conductive wire (C7/L59; C8/L4), and further discloses the resulting compressed wire is a flattened version of the corresponding shape (C8/L3-4; C8/L10; 250 in Figure 2A (b)), and additionally discloses the wires can have a cross-sectional shape that is round, flattened, slightly flattened, or another shape (C9/L55-57); Sewell does not explicitly disclose a perimeter of the cross-sectional area having a shape with a head and shoulders comprising two or more inflection points each between the head and one of the shoulders.
While modified Sewell does disclose the resulting compressed wire is a flattened version of the corresponding shape (C8/L3-4; C8/L10; 250 in Figure 2A (b)), and additionally discloses the wires can have a cross-sectional shape that is round, flattened, slightly flattened, or another shape (C9/L55-57); modified Sewell does not explicitly disclose a perimeter of the cross-sectional area having a shape with a head and shoulders comprising two or more inflection points each between the head and one of the shoulders.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the conductive wire of modified Sewell such that a perimeter of the cross-sectional area has a shape with a head and shoulders comprising two or more inflection points each between the head and one of the shoulders because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 2, modified Sewell discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Sewell does disclose the conductive wire at a point of contact with the p-type doped region of the second solar cell has a second cross-sectional area perpendicular to a length of the conductive wire (C6/L55-57; C8/L4), and further discloses the resulting compressed wire is a flattened version of the corresponding shape (C8/L3-4; C8/L10; 250 in Figure 2A (b)), and additionally discloses the wires can have a cross-sectional shape that is round, flattened, slightly flattened, or another shape (C9/L55-57); modified Sewell does not explicitly disclose a perimeter of the second cross-sectional area has an inflection point.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the perimeter of the second cross-sectional area perpendicular to the length of the conductive wire of modified Sewell such that the perimeter of the second cross-sectional area has an inflection point, because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sewell discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Sewell further discloses the cross-sectional area has a cross-sectional shape, and the conductive wire has substantially the same cross-sectional shape along a majority of a length of the first solar cell (C9/L55-61).
It is noted that if the disclosure of column 9, lines 55-61 of Sewell does not explicitly disclose the conductive wire has substantially the same cross-sectional shape along a majority of a length of the first solar cell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the conductive wire of modified Sewell such that the conductive wire has substantially the same cross-sectional shape along a majority of a length of the first solar cell, because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 5, modified Sewell discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Sewell does disclose the resulting compressed wire is a flattened version of the corresponding shape (C8/L3-4; C8/L10; 250 in Figure 2A (b)), and additionally discloses the wires can have a cross-sectional shape that is round, flattened, slightly flattened, or another shape (C9/L55-57); modified Sewell does not explicitly disclose the perimeter of the cross-sectional area has a contact length greater than 200 micrometers and less than 500 micrometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the conductive wire of modified Sewell such that the perimeter of the cross-sectional area has a contact length greater than 200 micrometers and less than 500 micrometers because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 6, modified Sewell discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Sewell does disclose the resulting compressed wire is a flattened version of the corresponding shape (C8/L3-4; C8/L10; 250 in Figure 2A (b)), and additionally discloses the wires can have a cross-sectional shape that is round, flattened, slightly flattened, or another shape (C9/L55-57); modified Sewell does not explicitly disclose the perimeter of the cross-sectional area has a contact length and a line from the contact length to the inflection point on the perimeter delineates a first portion of the cross-sectional area, the first portion having a side opposite the contact length that is substantially flat and parallel to the contact length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the conductive wire of modified Sewell such that the perimeter of the cross-sectional area has a contact length and a line from the contact length to the inflection point on the perimeter delineates a first portion of the cross-sectional area, the first portion having a side opposite the contact length that is substantially flat and parallel to the contact length, because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sewell discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Sewell does disclose the resulting compressed wire is a flattened version of the corresponding shape (C8/L3-4; C8/L10; 250 in Figure 2A (b)), and additionally discloses the wires can have a cross-sectional shape that is round, flattened, slightly flattened, or another shape (C9/L55-57); modified Sewell does not explicitly disclose the perimeter of the cross-sectional area has a contact length and the cross-sectional area has a width, and wherein the width is greater than the contact length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the conductive wire of modified Sewell such that the perimeter of the cross-sectional area has a contact length and the cross-sectional area has a width, and wherein the width is greater than the contact length because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 9, modified Sewell discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Sewell further discloses the conductive wire comprises aluminum (C7/L16).
Regarding claim 11, modified Sewell discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Sewell does disclose the resulting compressed wire is a flattened version of the corresponding shape (C8/L3-4; C8/L10; 250 in Figure 2A (b)), and additionally discloses the wires can have a cross-sectional shape that is round, flattened, slightly flattened, or another shape (C9/L55-57); modified Sewell does not explicitly disclose the perimeter has 4 inflection points.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the conductive wire of modified Sewell such that the perimeter has 4 inflection points because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 12, Sewell discloses a string of solar cells (Fig. 5) comprising first and second solar cells electrically connected in series (C11/L1), each solar cell comprising a silicon semiconductor substrate (C4/L24; C6/L63; C8/L16; C16/L30; C17/L29), an n-type doped region (C6/L52-53), and a p-type doped region (C6/L52-53); and a conductive wire in contact with the n-type doped region of the first solar cell and in contact with the p-type doped region of the second solar cell (C10/L33-36).
While Sewell does disclose the conductive wire at a point of contact with the n-type doped region of the first solar cell having a cross-sectional area perpendicular to a length of the conductive wire (C7/L59; C8/L4), and further discloses the resulting compressed wire is a flattened version of the corresponding shape (C8/L3-4; C8/L10; 250 in Figure 2A (b)), and additionally discloses the wires can have a cross-sectional shape that is round, flattened, slightly flattened, or another shape (C9/L55-57); Sewell does not explicitly disclose a perimeter of the cross-sectional area having a substantially straight portion adjacent to the first solar cell and a curved portion opposite the substantially straight portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the perimeter of the cross-sectional area perpendicular to the length of the conductive wire of Sewell such that the perimeter of the cross-sectional area has a substantially straight portion adjacent to the first solar cell and a curved portion opposite the substantially straight portion, because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 13, modified Sewell discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Sewell does disclose the resulting compressed wire is a flattened version of the corresponding shape (C8/L3-4; C8/L10; 250 in Figure 2A (b)) and further discloses the wires can have a cross-sectional shape that is round, flattened, slightly flattened, or another shape (C9/L55-57); modified Sewell does not explicitly disclose the perimeter comprises a curved portion located at a midline of the cross-sectional area and opposite the substantially straight portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the perimeter of the cross-sectional area perpendicular to the length of the conductive wire of modified Sewell such that the perimeter comprises a curved portion located at a midline of the cross-sectional area and opposite the substantially straight portion, because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 14, modified Sewell discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Sewell further discloses the wire comprises aluminum (C7/L16).
Regarding claim 15, modified Sewell discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Sewell further discloses the cross-sectional area has a cross-sectional shape, and the conductive wire has substantially the same cross-sectional shape along a majority of a length of the first solar cell (C9/L55-61).
It is noted that if the disclosure of column 9, lines 55-61 of Sewell does not explicitly disclose the conductive wire has substantially the same cross-sectional shape along a majority of a length of the first solar cell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the conductive wire of modified Sewell such that the conductive wire has substantially the same cross-sectional shape along a majority of a length of the first solar cell, because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sewell et al. (US 11,227,962) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Feng et al. (US 2022/0376124).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sewell discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Modified Sewell does not explicitly disclose a passivation layer coating the silicon semiconductor substrate, the passivation layer comprising a hole, and wherein the contact of the conductive wire with the n-type doped region is through the hole in the passivation layer.
Feng discloses a string of solar cells ([0104]) and further discloses a passivation layer ([0065]) coating the silicon semiconductor substrate ([0049]), the passivation layer comprising a hole, and wherein contact of a conductive wire with n-type doped regions is through the hole in the passivation layer ([0065]; it is noted that the limitation “contact” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a passivation layer, as disclosed by Feng, on the silicon semiconductor substrate of modified Sewell such that contact of the conductive wire with the n-type region of modified Sewell is through the hole in the passivation layer, because as taught by Feng, the configuration reduces the contact area among the metal electrode, the first conductive layer 6 and the second conductive layer 7, which further reduces contact resistance, and thus increases an open-circuit voltage ([0065]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a passivation layer, as disclosed by Feng, on the silicon semiconductor substrate of modified Sewell such that contact of the conductive wire with the n-type region of modified Sewell is through the hole in the passivation layer, because as evidenced by Feng, the configuration amounts to a known structural arrangement in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when including a passivation layer on the silicon substrate of modified Sewell such that contact of the conductive wire with the n-type region is through the hole in the passivation layer based on the teaching of Feng.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that inflection points between the head and the shoulders is definite. In response to Applicant’s argument, as set forth in the office action, lines 11 and 12 of claim 1 recite “a shape with a head and shoulders comprising two or more inflection points each between the head and one of the shoulders” however, the structure required to satisfy the limitation is unclear because the shape required to satisfy “a shape with a head and shoulders” is not defined. Additionally, the limitation requires shoulders comprising two or more inflection points each between the head and one of the shoulders, however, the manner in which the shoulders comprise two or more inflection points while each inflection point is between the head and one of the shoulders, which comprise the two or more inflection points, is unclear.
Applicant argues that the present application is directed to solar cells with more
effective conductive wires, and in particular, the wire is more precisely positioned on the solar cell compared to conventional devices (present application, [0040]). Applicant further argues that for example, the wire may be shaped by a grooved roller with a centering effect that more precisely aligns the wire on the solar cell (present application, Figures 7A-7B, paragraphs [0034] and [0037]). Additionally, Applicant argues the grooved roller achieves this centering effect by the sloped sidewalls of the groove (present application, Fig. 6, paragraph [0034]), and in contrast, Sewell depicts in Fig. 13 a roller having grooves with perpendicular sidewalls, and that the wire’s shape recited in claim 1 is significant because it results from the present application’s centering grooved roller during bonding, resulting in a more precisely aligned solar cell. Applicant asserts claim 12’s shape also results from the centering of the present application’s grooved roller.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Applicant has not provided evidence of the significance of the claimed shape. Applicant’s arguments are directed to the manner in which the apparatus is made. Even if the prior art product is made by a different process, the claim is directed to the product, not the method by which the product is made. Applicant argues the present application is directed to solar cells with more effective conductive wires. However, Applicant does not provide evidence that the claimed shape is significant in achieving the more effective conductive wires.
It is noted that the claim amendments overcome the 112 rejections of claims 5-7
and 13 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