DETAILED ACTION
This is the second Office Action regarding application number 18/568,189, filed on 12/07/2023, which is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/065585, filed on 06/08/2022, and which claims foreign priority to EP 21178533.2, filed on 06/09/2021.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 11/18/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-17, and 19-22 are currently pending.
Claims 8, 10, and 18 are canceled.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19-22 are amended.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-17, and 19-22 are examined below.
The Office’s objections to the Drawings are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The Office’s objections to claims have been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
No claim is allowed.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments received 11/18/2025 have been carefully considered but they are not found persuasive.
The applicant’s amendments resolve one set of indefiniteness issues but also create a new set of indefiniteness issues. Please see the rejections that follow.
The examiner first wishes to note that the use of the word “parallel” is understood to mean that each of the at least two solar cell strings are arranged in a manner that the longer extensional arrangement direction of the multiple strings are parallel, and that the use of the word “parallel” is not referring to any sort of parallel electrical connection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “at least one elongated electrically conducting interconnect” at line 6. Claim 1 again recites “the at least one substantially flat adhesive comprises at least one elongated electrically conducting interconnect” at lines 12-13. The claim is completely indefinite and unclear whether these are one and the same. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
There is additional logical inconsistency with how the interconnects are recited: both the solar cell and the flat adhesive are recited to comprise at least one elongated electrically conducting interconnect. When the final limitation of claim 1 recites that the flat adhesive does not extend between adjacent solar cells of the at least two solar cells, this would appears to require that all of the flat adhesive’s subcomponents (i.e., the at least one elongated electrically conducting interconnect) also does not extend between adjacent solar cells of the at least two solar cells. However, part (ii) of claim 1 expressly requires that the interconnect connects adjacent solar cells, and this would require extending between the adjacent solar cells in order to create the connection. Therefore, the limitations of claim 1 are also in direct logical conflict with each other.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the at least one substantially flat adhesive extends to parallel solar cells of parallel solar cell strings of the at least two solar cell strings”. The examiner cannot determine the meaning of this phrase. Is the applicant attempting to describe how the flat adhesive extends between adjacent solar cells within each individual string, in longer extensional direction? Or extends between adjacent solar cells of neighboring strings, in the direction perpendicular to the longer extensional direction? This issue also ties back to the other indefiniteness issues identified above, as the examiner cannot confidently determine exactly how the flat adhesive is required to be arranged with respect to the various solar cells and strings. The examiner cannot import assumptions from the drawings.
Claim 5 recites “the minimum vertical offset”, but this was not previously introduced in a preceding limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 depends on cancelled claim 8. Claim 11 depends on claim 9.
Claim 19 recites “the thermoadhesive polymer material”, but claim 7 recites “a thermoadhesive polymer material layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The examiner again asserts that there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of claim 1, and considerable speculation and assumptions about the meaning of many terms employed within the claims are required to even guess the scope of the claim. In this instance, the examiner concludes that it would not be proper to reject claim 1 on the basis of prior art. MPEP 2173.06(II).
If it is correct to assume that the general inventive feature is that the flat adhesive extends between cells in adjacent strings, that the flat adhesive does not extend between cells within a single string, and that the interconnect extends between cells within a single string, then the invention is likely clear of the teachings of prior art references reviewed by this examiner.
The following prior art is not relied upon but considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure: KALKANOGLU (US 2011/0030761 A1) teaches an assembly where solar cells are adhered together in a first direction and then interconnected together in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
448
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The 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). The Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner
Prosecution Insights