DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments to the Claims and Remarks filed November 17, 2025.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed November 17, 2025, the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 11, 12, 14-16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) previously presented in the Office Action sent September 4, 2025 have been withdrawn.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed November 17, 2025, the rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 11, 12, 14-16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously presented in the Office Action sent September 4, 2025 have been substantially maintained and modified only in response to the Amendments to the Claims.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 19 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-5, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (CN 218160393 U included in Applicant submitted IDS filed October 17, 2024) in view of Holman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0053862 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Lu et al. discloses a solar cell device comprising
a plurality of back-contact solar cells (see Fig. 4 depicting a plurality of back-contact solar cells), and each of the plurality of back-contact solar cells comprises
a front surface provided with a transparent support layer (such as depicted in Fig. 1-3, a front surface 1b provided with a transparent support layer 8; see [0043]), wherein
the transparent support layer protrudes from a corresponding front surface (as depicted in Fig. 1-3, the cited transparent support layer 8 protrudes from a corresponding front surface 1b), and wherein
the transparent support layer covers a partial region of the corresponding front surface (as depicted in Fig. 1-3, the cited transparent support layer 8 covers a partial region of the corresponding front surface 1b), wherein
the transparent support layer comprises a plurality of transparent bumps (see Fig. 2 depicting the cited transparent support layer comprises a plurality of transparent bumps 8).
Lu et al. does not disclose wherein a height of each one of the plurality of transparent bumps is less than 0.5 mm.
However, the height of each one of the plurality of transparent bumps is a result effective variable directly affecting the amount of material wasted and the protective effect of the transparent bumps (see [0046]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the height of each one of the plurality of transparent bumps in the module of Lu et al., as modified above, and arrive at the claimed range of less than 0.5 mm through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the amount of material wasted and the protective effect of the transparent bumps.
Lu et al. does not disclose wherein the plurality of back-contact solar cells are in a back-contact photovoltaic module.
However, Holman et al. discloses a photovoltaic module (see Title and Abstract) and teaches the module can include a glass substrate (302, Fig. 3 and see [0059]), an upper adhesive film layer (308/306/304, Fig. 3), a solar cell layer including a plurality of solar cells (310, Fig. 3), a lower adhesive film layer (312, Fig. 3), and a back sheet arranged in sequence from top to bottom (314, Fig. 3).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the plurality of solar cells in the module of Holman et al. for the plurality of back-contact solar cells cited in Lu et al. because the simple substitution of a known element known in the art to perform the same function, in the instant case a plurality of solar cells, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2143 B).
Lu et al., as modified above, discloses wherein a side of the upper adhesive film layer facing the plurality of back-contact solar cells is provided with a groove configured to fit the transparent support layer (see Holman et al. at Fig. 3 depicting a bottom side of the cited upper adhesive film at component 308 contouring to the top surface of the plurality of solar cells 310; see [0022] of Holman et al. teaching the encapsulation material of the cited upper adhesive film layer at component 308 contours the photovoltaic cells during lamination which, when combined with the plurality of back-contact solar cells of Lu et al. as discussed above, would provide for the cited bottom side of the cited upper adhesive film layer facing the plurality of back-contact solar cells is provided with a groove configured to fit the cited transparent support layer 8 at the portion that contours the plurality of transparent bumps 8).
Lu et al. does not disclose wherein an interval between adjacent ones of the plurality of transparent bumps is no more than 7 cm.
However, the interval between adjacent ones of the plurality of transparent bumps is a result effective variable directly affecting the coverage area of the transparent bumps and Lu et al. teaches the coverage area affects the amount of material wasted and the protective effect of the transparent bumps (see [0049]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the interval between adjacent ones of the plurality of transparent bumps in the module of Lu et al., as modified above, and arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the coverage area which affects the amount of material wasted and the protective effect of the transparent bumps.
Lu et al. does not disclose wherein a projected area of the plurality of transparent bumps on the front surface of each of the plurality of back-contact solar cells is less than 10 mm2.
However, the projected area of the plurality of transparent bumps on the front surface of each of the plurality of back-contact solar cells is a result effective variable directly affecting the amount of material wasted and the protective effect of the transparent bumps (see [0049]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the projected area of the plurality of transparent bumps in the module of Lu et al., as modified above, and arrive at the claimed range of less than 10 mm2 through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the amount of material wasted and the protective effect of the transparent bumps.
With regard to claim 2, independent claim 1 is obvious over Lu et al. in view of Holman et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Lu et al. discloses wherein
an area ratio of the transparent support layer to the front surface ranges from 1% to 80% (see [0018] teaching 0.01% to 90% which is cited to read on the claimed “1% to 80%” because it includes values within the claimed range).
With regard to claim 4, independent claim 1 is obvious over Lu et al. in view of Holman et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Lu et al. discloses wherein
the plurality of transparent bumps are evenly distributed on the front surface of each of the plurality of back-contact solar cells (see Fig. 2 depicting the cited plurality of transparent bumps 8 which is cited to read on the claimed “are evenly distributed on the front surface of each of the plurality of back-contact solar cells” because they are evenly distributed in the four corners of the front surface 1b of each solar cell).
With regard to claim 5, independent claim 1 is obvious over Lu et al. in view of Holman et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Lu et al. does not disclose wherein a number of the plurality of transparent bumps is at least 9.
However, the number of the plurality of transparent bumps is a result effective variable directly affecting the coverage area of the transparent bumps and Lu et al. teaches the coverage area affects the amount of material wasted and the protective effect of the transparent bumps (see [0049]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the number of the plurality of transparent bumps in the module of Lu et al., as modified above, and arrive at the claimed range of at least 9 through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the coverage area which affects the amount of material wasted and the protective effect of the transparent bumps.
With regard to claim 9, independent claim 1 is obvious over Lu et al. in view of Holman et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Lu et al. discloses wherein
the transparent support layer comprises of an insulating adhesive, a hot melt adhesive, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA), or polyolefin elastomer (POE) (see [0044] teaching EVA and POE).
Claim(s) 11, 12, 14, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (CN 218160393 U included in Applicant submitted IDS filed October 17, 2024) in view of Holman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0053862 A1) and Okada et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0259998 A1).
With regard to claim 11, Lu et al. discloses a method for manufacturing a solar cell device comprising
a plurality of back-contact solar cells (see Fig. 4 depicting a plurality of back-contact solar cells), and each of the plurality of back-contact solar cells comprises
a front surface provided with a transparent support layer (such as depicted in Fig. 1-3, a front surface 1b provided with a transparent support layer 8; see [0043]), wherein
the transparent support layer protrudes from a corresponding front surface (as depicted in Fig. 1-3, the cited transparent support layer 8 protrudes from a corresponding front surface 1b), and wherein
the transparent support layer covers a partial region of the corresponding front surface (as depicted in Fig. 1-3, the cited transparent support layer 8 covers a partial region of the corresponding front surface 1b), wherein
the transparent support layer comprises a plurality of transparent bumps (see Fig. 2 depicting the cited transparent support layer comprises a plurality of transparent bumps 8), the method comprising:
making the front surface of the plurality of back-contact solar cells face upwards, and manufacturing the transparent support layer (see Fig. 1-2 depicting manufacturing of the cited transparent support layer 8 on the front surface 1b; while Lu et al. does not explicitly teach the front surface is made to face upwards, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have tried making the front surface to face upwards because facing upwards is one in a finite of immediately recognizable options, finite options being facing upwards, downwards, or laterally during manufacturing of the transparent support layer 8, within the technical grasp of a skilled artesian, see MPEP 2143 E),
turning over each one of the plurality of back-contact solar cells for transferring (see Fig. 4 depicting each one of the plurality of back-contact solar cells stacked upon each other for transferring; while Lu et al. does not explicitly teach turning over each one of the plurality of back-contact solar cells, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have tried turning over each one of the plurality of back-contact solar cells because turning over is one in a finite of immediately recognizable options, finite options being turning over, keeping upright, or laterally during transferring, within the technical grasp of a skilled artesian, see MPEP 2143 E).
Lu et al. does not disclose wherein a height of each one of the plurality of transparent bumps is less than 0.5 mm.
However, the height of each one of the plurality of transparent bumps is a result effective variable directly affecting the amount of material wasted and the protective effect of the transparent bumps (see [0046]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the height of each one of the plurality of transparent bumps in the module of Lu et al., as modified above, and arrive at the claimed range of less than 0.5 mm through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the amount of material wasted and the protective effect of the transparent bumps.
Lu et al. does not disclose packaging the plurality of back-contact solar cells to form a back-contact photovoltaic module.
However, Holman et al. discloses a photovoltaic module (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a plurality of solar cells and be packaged in a photovoltaic module which can include a glass substrate (302, Fig. 3 and see [0059]), an upper adhesive film layer (308/306/304, Fig. 3), a solar cell layer including a plurality of solar cells (310, Fig. 3), a lower adhesive film layer (312, Fig. 3), and a back sheet arranged in sequence from top to bottom (314, Fig. 3).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the plurality of solar cells packaged in the module of Holman et al. for the plurality of back-contact solar cells cited in Lu et al. because the simple substitution of a known element known in the art to perform the same function, in the instant case a plurality of solar cells, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2143 B).
Lu et al., as modified above, discloses wherein a side of the upper adhesive film layer facing the plurality of back-contact solar cells is provided with a groove configured to fit the transparent support layer (see Holman et al. at Fig. 3 depicting a bottom side of the cited upper adhesive film at component 308 contouring to the top surface of the plurality of solar cells 310; see [0022] of Holman et al. teaching the encapsulation material of the cited upper adhesive film layer at component 308 contours the photovoltaic cells during lamination which, when combined with the plurality of back-contact solar cells of Lu et al. as discussed above, would provide for the cited bottom side of the cited upper adhesive film layer facing the plurality of back-contact solar cells is provided with a groove configured to fit the cited transparent support layer 8 at the portion that contours the plurality of transparent bumps 8).
Lu et al. teaches the transparent support layer includes a curable material (see [0044] teaching EVA) but does not specifically teach wherein the transparent support layer is cured.
However, Okada et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a photovoltaic module (see Fig. 1) and teaches a transparent support layer of EVA can be formed by curing the transparent support layer of EVA (see [0045]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the technique of forming the EVA transparent support layer of Lu et al. for the technique of forming the EVA transparent support layer of Okada et al. because the simple substitution of a known element known in the art to perform the same function, in the instant case a technique of forming an EVA transparent support layer, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2143 B).
Lu et al. does not disclose wherein an interval between adjacent ones of the plurality of transparent bumps is no more than 7 cm.
However, the interval between adjacent ones of the plurality of transparent bumps is a result effective variable directly affecting the coverage area of the transparent bumps and Lu et al. teaches the coverage area affects the amount of material wasted and the protective effect of the transparent bumps (see [0049]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the interval between adjacent ones of the plurality of transparent bumps in the module of Lu et al., as modified above, and arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the coverage area which affects the amount of material wasted and the protective effect of the transparent bumps.
Lu et al. does not disclose wherein a projected area of the plurality of transparent bumps on the front surface of each of the plurality of back-contact solar cells is less than 10 mm2.
However, the projected area of the plurality of transparent bumps on the front surface of each of the plurality of back-contact solar cells is a result effective variable directly affecting the amount of material wasted and the protective effect of the transparent bumps (see [0049]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the projected area of the plurality of transparent bumps in the module of Lu et al., as modified above, and arrive at the claimed range of less than 10 mm2 through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the amount of material wasted and the protective effect of the transparent bumps.
With regard to claim 12, independent claim 11 is obvious over Lu et al. in view of Holman et al. and Okada et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Lu et al. discloses wherein
an area ratio of the transparent support layer to the front surface ranges from 1% to 80% (see [0018] teaching 0.01% to 90% which is cited to read on the claimed “1% to 80%” because it includes values within the claimed range).
With regard to claim 14, independent claim 11 is obvious over Lu et al. in view of Holman et al. and Okada et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Lu et al. discloses wherein
the plurality of transparent bumps are evenly distributed on the front surface of each of the plurality of back-contact solar cells (see Fig. 2 depicting the cited plurality of transparent bumps 8 which is cited to read on the claimed “are evenly distributed on the front surface of each of the plurality of back-contact solar cells” because they are evenly distributed in the four corners of the front surface 1b of each solar cell).
With regard to claim 15, independent claim 11 is obvious over Lu et al. in view of Holman et al. and Okada et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Lu et al. does not disclose wherein a number of the plurality of transparent bumps is at least 9.
However, the number of the plurality of transparent bumps is a result effective variable directly affecting the coverage area of the transparent bumps and Lu et al. teaches the coverage area affects the amount of material wasted and the protective effect of the transparent bumps (see [0049]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the number of the plurality of transparent bumps in the module of Lu et al., as modified above, and arrive at the claimed range of at least 9 through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the coverage area which affects the amount of material wasted and the protective effect of the transparent bumps.
With regard to claim 19, independent claim 1 is obvious over Lu et al. in view of Holman et al. and Okada et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Lu et al. discloses wherein
the transparent support layer comprises of an insulating adhesive, a hot melt adhesive, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA), or polyolefin elastomer (POE) (see [0044] teaching EVA and POE).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Lu et al. can only practically position the protective member on the rear side of the cell. However, this argument is not persuasive.
Lu et al. plainly teaches positioning the protective member 8 on the front side of the cell (see Fig. 1, Fig. 4, and [0040]).
Applicant argues a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have optimized the projected area and achieve the claimed range because the claimed range is not related to the material wasted and protective effect of the transparent bumps. However, this argument is not persuasive.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the projected area and achieve the claimed range through routine experimentation because it would have led to optimizing the amount of material wasted and the protective effect of the transparent bumps.
Applicant concludes forming a groove in the encapsulation layers of Holman may cause fracture under pressure. However, this conclusion is not persuasive. Lu and Holman do not teach fracture under pressure.
Applicant concludes that since Lu teaches protective member 8 can be fused with the adhesive film at a later stage, a fusing process would have melted the hypothetical groove-like structure in Holman. However, this conclusion is not persuasive.
Lu is not cited to teach fusing with adhesive film at a later stage.
Lu, Holman, and the rejections of the claims do not teach or rely on any fusing process.
Lu and Holman do not teach fusing would melt the hypothetical groove.
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 DUSTIN Q DAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5120. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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.
/DUSTIN Q DAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 December 3, 2025
Prosecution Insights