DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action for 18/419,599, filed 1/23/2024, which is a continuation of PCT/CN2022/085058, filed 4/2/2022, which claims priority to Chinese application CN202110937779.X, filed 8/16/2021.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-15 are pending, Claim 7 is withdrawn, and Claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, and 12-15 are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn, and the prior art rejections are withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are applied herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0170431 A1: This reference teaches a pattern of multiple main gates in a shingled solar cell configuration (see, e.g., Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 8-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakuma, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0313020 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Sakuma teaches heterojunction (paragraph [0036]) cell 10 (Fig. 4, with details given in Figs. 1-3, paragraphs [0033]-[0073]).
The heterojunction cell of Sakuma comprises a substrate 20, wherein the substrate is provided with a front surface 20b and a back surface 20a (Fig. 2, paragraph [0038]).
Fig. 2 teaches that a TCO film layer 22/24 is provided on both the front surface and the back surface of the substrate (paragraphs [0049]-[0050]).
Figs. 1-2 teach that the solar cell comprises and at least two columns of short main gates 32/42 with the same number disposed at intervals on the TCO film layer of both the front surface and the back surface of the substrate (paragraphs [0051]-[0052] and [0079]).
Fig. 2 teaches that the at least two columns of short main gates 42 located on a side of the substrate adjacent to the front surface of the substrate are defined as first main gates, the at least two columns of short main gates 32 located on a side of the substrate adjacent to the back surface of the substrate are defined as second main gates.
Figs. 1-4 teach that the substrate is capable of being cut to form at least two battery slices, each of the at least two battery slices comprises two long edges opposite to each other and two short edges opposite to each other; each of the at least two battery slices is provided with one column of the first main gates and one column of the second main gates, wherein the one column of the first main gates is arranged adjacent to one of the two long edges of each of the at least two battery slices, and the one column of the second main gates is arranged adjacent to the other of the two long edges of each of the at least two battery slices.
The inset below teaches that two long edges of each of the at least two columns of short main gates are perpendicular to the two long edges of each of the at least two battery slices.
PNG
media_image1.png
528
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that “wherein the substrate is capable of being cut to form at least two battery slices, each of the at least two battery slices comprises two long edges opposite to each other and two short edges opposite to each other; each of the at least two battery slices is provided with one column of the first main gates and one column of the second main gates, wherein the one column of the first main gates is arranged adjacent to one of the two long edges of each of the at least two battery slices, and the one column of the second main gates is arranged adjacent to the other of the two long edges of each of the at least two battery slices,” are intended use limitations of the claim.
In reference to Claim 4, Figs. 1-4 and 6 teach that the number of the second main gates 32 is the same as the number of the first main gates 42 , the second main gates correspond to the first main gates respectively one by one, and a projection of each of the second main gates on the front surface of the substrate and a projection of corresponding one of the first main gates on the front surface of the substrate is in the same line, which is perpendicular to the long edges of each of the at least two battery slices (paragraphs [0051]-[0052] and [0079]).
In reference to Claim 8, Sakuma teaches a battery assembly (Figs. 6-7, paragraphs [0077]-[0081], with details given in Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs [0033]-[0073]).
The assembly of Sakuma comprises a plurality of cells 10 and a plurality of welding tapes 3 (paragraphs [0077]-[0079]).
It is the Examiner’s position that electrodes 3 meet the limitations of “welding tapes,” because they are taught to be flat, conductive wires (Figs. 6-7, paragraph [0077]) that conductively weld/connect adjacent solar cells (Figs. 6-7).
Sakuma teaches that the plurality of cells 10 are battery slices formed by cutting a heterojunction (paragraph [0036]) cell (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs [0033]-[0073]).
The heterojunction cell of Sakuma comprises a substrate 20, wherein the substrate is provided with a front surface 20b and a back surface 20a (Fig. 2, paragraph [0038]).
Fig. 2 teaches that a TCO film layer 22/24 is provided on both the front surface and the back surface of the substrate (paragraphs [0049]-[0050]).
Figs. 1-2 teach that the solar cell comprises and at least two columns of short main gates 32/42 with the same number disposed at intervals on the TCO film layer of both the front surface and the back surface of the substrate (paragraphs [0051]-[0052] and [0079]).
Fig. 2 teaches that the at least two columns of short main gates 42 located on a side of the substrate adjacent to the front surface of the substrate are defined as first main gates, the at least two columns of short main gates 32 located on a side of the substrate adjacent to the back surface of the substrate are defined as second main gates.
Figs. 1-4 teach that the number of the battery slices formed by cutting the heterojunction cell are at least two (i.e. two).
The inset below teaches that each of the at least two battery slices comprises two long edges opposite to each other and two short edges opposite to each other; each of the at least two battery slices is provided with one column of the first main gates and one column of the second main gates, wherein the one column of the first main gates is arranged adjacent to one of the two long edges of each of the at least two battery slices, and the one column of the second main gates is arranged adjacent to the other of the two long edges of each of the at least two battery slices.
The inset below teaches that two long edges of each of the at least two columns of short main gates are perpendicular to the two long edges of each of the at least two battery slices.
Figs. 6-7 teach that two ends of each of the plurality of welding tapes are respectively connected with the one column of the first main gates of one of adjacent two of the at least two battery slices and the one column of the second main gates of the other of adjacent two of the at least two battery slices to connect the plurality of cells in series.
PNG
media_image1.png
528
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that “formed by cutting” is considered product-by-process limitation.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
In reference to Claim 9, Sakuma teaches that two ends of each of the plurality of welding tapes 3 are respectively connected with the one column of the first main gates 42 of one of adjacent two of the at least two battery slices and the one column of the second main gates 32 of the other one of adjacent two of the at least two battery slices by a conductive adhesive (i.e. because the main gates 32/42 are taught to be made of a conductive adhesive, paragraph [0089]).
In reference to Claim 10, Sakuma teaches two ends of each of the plurality of welding tapes 3 are directly and fixedly connected with both the one column of the first main gates 42 of one of adjacent two of the at least two battery slices and the one column of the second main gates 32 of the other one of adjacent two of the at least two battery slices (paragraphs [0077]-[0079]).
In reference to Claim 13, Figs. 6-7 teach that the number of the second main gates 32 is the same as the number of the first main gates 42, the second main gates correspond to the first main gates respectively one by one, and a projection of each of the second main gates on the front surface of the substrate and a projection of corresponding one of the first main gates on the front surface of the substrate is in the same line, which is perpendicular to the long edges of each of the at least two battery slices.
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 3, 5-6, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0313020 A1), in view of Anderson (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0261636 A1).
In reference to Claims 3 and 12, Sakuma is silent regarding the dimensions of the electrodes of his invention. Therefore, does not teach that a size of each of the at least two columns of short main gates along a direction of the two short edges of each of the at least two battery slices is in a range of 0.3 mm to 1.5 mm.
To solve the same problem of providing a silicon solar cell array, Anderson teaches that the dimensions and spacing of finger and bus electrodes can be controlled to minimize resistive losses due to lateral current flow through the cell (i.e. by increasing the size and number of the electrodes and/or decreasing the spacing of the electrodes) and to minimize shading of the surface of the solar cell (i.e. by decreasing the size and number of the electrodes and/or increasing the spacing of the electrodes) (paragraphs [0128]-[0129]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the spacing, dimensions, and number of all of the electrodes on the surfaces of the solar cell of Sakuma, in order to balance these considerations, based on the teachings of Anderson.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed main gate dimensions recited in Claims 3 and 12, without undue experimentation.
In reference to Claims 5 and 14, Sakuma does not teach that the number of short main gates in each of the two columns is in a range of 4-25.
To solve the same problem of providing a silicon solar cell array, Anderson teaches that the dimensions and spacing of finger and bus electrodes can be controlled to minimize resistive losses due to lateral current flow through the cell (i.e. by increasing the size and number of the electrodes and/or decreasing the spacing of the electrodes) and to minimize shading of the surface of the solar cell (i.e. by decreasing the size and number of the electrodes and/or increasing the spacing of the electrodes) (paragraphs [0128]-[0129]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the spacing, dimensions, and number of all of the electrodes on the surfaces of the solar cell of Sakuma, in order to balance these considerations, based on the teachings of Anderson.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed number of main gates recited in Claims 5 and 14, without undue experimentation.
In reference to Claims 6 and 15, Fig. 1 of Sakuma teaches that the substrate is a square shape with chamfers on four edges.
Claims 8-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0313020 A1), in view of Lu, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0312163 A1).
If it is found that Sakuma does not anticipate Claims 8-10 and 13, the following rejections are presented.
In reference to Claim 8, Sakuma teaches a battery assembly (Figs. 6-7, paragraphs [0077]-[0081], with details given in Figs. 1-4 and paragraphs [0033]-[0073]).
The assembly of Sakuma comprises a plurality of cells 10 and a plurality of connectors 3 (paragraphs [0077]-[0079]).
Sakuma teaches that the plurality of cells 10 are battery slices formed by cutting a heterojunction (paragraph [0036]) cell (Figs. 1-4, paragraphs [0033]-[0073]).
The heterojunction cell of Sakuma comprises a substrate 20, wherein the substrate is provided with a front surface 20b and a back surface 20a (Fig. 2, paragraph [0038]).
Fig. 2 teaches that a TCO film layer 22/24 is provided on both the front surface and the back surface of the substrate (paragraphs [0049]-[0050]).
Figs. 1-2 teach that the solar cell comprises and at least two columns of short main gates 32/42 with the same number disposed at intervals on the TCO film layer of both the front surface and the back surface of the substrate (paragraphs [0051]-[0052] and [0079]).
Fig. 2 teaches that the at least two columns of short main gates 42 located on a side of the substrate adjacent to the front surface of the substrate are defined as first main gates, the at least two columns of short main gates 32 located on a side of the substrate adjacent to the back surface of the substrate are defined as second main gates.
Figs. 1-4 teach that the number of the battery slices formed by cutting the heterojunction cell are at least two (i.e. two).
The inset below teaches that each of the at least two battery slices comprises two long edges opposite to each other and two short edges opposite to each other; each of the at least two battery slices is provided with one column of the first main gates and one column of the second main gates, wherein the one column of the first main gates is arranged adjacent to one of the two long edges of each of the at least two battery slices, and the one column of the second main gates is arranged adjacent to the other of the two long edges of each of the at least two battery slices.
The inset below teaches that two long edges of each of the at least two columns of short main gates are perpendicular to the two long edges of each of the at least two battery slices.
Figs. 6-7 teach that two ends of each of the plurality of welding tapes are respectively connected with the one column of the first main gates of one of adjacent two of the at least two battery slices and the one column of the second main gates of the other of adjacent two of the at least two battery slices to connect the plurality of cells in series.
PNG
media_image1.png
528
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The battery assembly of Sakuma does not comprise the welding tapes recited in Claim 8.
Instead, as described above, the electrical connections between the cells of the string are made by conductive adhesives (paragraph [0089]).
To solve the same problem of providing electrical interconnects in shingled solar cells (Lu, Fig. 10), Lu teaches that conductive adhesives or welding of metallic interconnects (paragraph [0047]), and that a suitable method of carrying out welding of adjacent solar cells includes welding a metal tape to conductive regions of adjacent solar cells (paragraph [0067]).
Lu further teaches that metallic tapes can be used in combination with electrically conductive adhesives to form an electrically conductive structure between solar cells (paragraph [0069]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the device of Sakuma so that the metallic interconnects between adjacent cells are formed by welded metallic tapes, in addition to the conductive adhesives, based on the disclosure of Lu.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein the battery assembly comprises a plurality of welding tapes, corresponding to the welding tapes of Lu.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein two ends of each of the plurality of welding tapes are respectively connected with the one column of the first main gates of one of adjacent two of the at least two battery slices and the one column of the second main gates of the other of adjacent two of the at least two battery slices to connect the plurality of cells in series (Sakuma, Figs. 6-7).
It is noted that “formed by cutting” is considered product-by-process limitation.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 9, wherein two ends of each of the plurality of welding tapes are respectively connected with the one column of the first main gates 42 of one of adjacent two of the at least two battery slices and the one column of the second main gates 32 of the other one of adjacent two of the at least two battery slices by a conductive adhesive (Sakuma, Figs. 6-7).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein two ends of each of the plurality of welding tapes are directly and fixedly connected with both the one column of the first main gates 42 of one of adjacent two of the at least two battery slices and the one column of the second main gates 32 of the other one of adjacent two of the at least two battery slices (Sakuma, paragraphs [0077]-[0079]).
In reference to Claim 13, Figs. 6-7 of Sakuma teach that the number of the second main gates 32 is the same as the number of the first main gates 42, the second main gates correspond to the first main gates respectively one by one, and a projection of each of the second main gates on the front surface of the substrate and a projection of corresponding one of the first main gates on the front surface of the substrate is in the same line, which is perpendicular to the long edges of each of the at least two battery slices.
Claims 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuma, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0313020 A1), in view of Lu, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0312163 A1), and further in view of Anderson (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0261636 A1).
In reference to Claim 12, modified Sakuma is silent regarding the dimensions of the electrodes of his invention. Therefore, does not teach that a size of each of the at least two columns of short main gates along a direction of the two short edges of each of the at least two battery slices is in a range of 0.3 mm to 1.5 mm.
To solve the same problem of providing a silicon solar cell array, Anderson teaches that the dimensions and spacing of finger and bus electrodes can be controlled to minimize resistive losses due to lateral current flow through the cell (i.e. by increasing the size and number of the electrodes and/or decreasing the spacing of the electrodes) and to minimize shading of the surface of the solar cell (i.e. by decreasing the size and number of the electrodes and/or increasing the spacing of the electrodes) (paragraphs [0128]-[0129]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the spacing, dimensions, and number of all of the electrodes on the surfaces of the solar cell of Sakuma, in order to balance these considerations, based on the teachings of Anderson.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed main gate dimensions recited in Claim 12, without undue experimentation.
In reference to Claim 14, modified Sakuma does not teach that the number of short main gates in each of the two columns is in a range of 4-25.
To solve the same problem of providing a silicon solar cell array, Anderson teaches that the dimensions and spacing of finger and bus electrodes can be controlled to minimize resistive losses due to lateral current flow through the cell (i.e. by increasing the size and number of the electrodes and/or decreasing the spacing of the electrodes) and to minimize shading of the surface of the solar cell (i.e. by decreasing the size and number of the electrodes and/or increasing the spacing of the electrodes) (paragraphs [0128]-[0129]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the spacing, dimensions, and number of all of the electrodes on the surfaces of the solar cell of Sakuma, in order to balance these considerations, based on the teachings of Anderson.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed number of main gates recited in Claim 14, without undue experimentation.
In reference to Claim 15, Fig. 1 of Sakuma teaches that the substrate is a square shape with chamfers on four edges.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 are presented herein.
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 SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721