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 .
Election/Restrictions
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/23/2026. Applicant has elected Group II and Species Aiv, corresponding to claims 1 and 4-6. Invention Group I and Species Ai-iii, corresponding to 2-3 and 7-11, are withdrawn from further consideration.
Specification
The specification submitted 2/19/2024 has been accepted by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 2/19/2024 have been accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted up to this point have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the surface of the wafer solar cell” lacks a clear antecedent, so the examiner suggests the following language “the respective surface of the wafer solar cell”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
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.
Claim 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hongming (US # 20210288208) in view of Chiu (US # 20140170804), Fellmeth (cited by applicant in the IDS dated 9/6/2024), and Hacke (US # 20080216887).
Regarding Claim 1, Hongming teaches a device (see Figs. 1-5 and corresponding text) for improving the ohmic contact between a front contact and a doped layer of a wafer solar cell (1) (intended use or function; [0001, 0010, 0032]), the wafer solar cell having a front (sun-facing side), a back (opposite the front), the front contact (grid 5, see Fig. 1), the doped layer (emitter layer) and a back contact (rear contact 3), the device comprising:
two contacting apparatuses, one for making electrical contact with the front contact (12) and the other for making electrical contact with the back contact ([0032]);
a voltage source ([0032]) having a pole for electrical connection to one of the contacting apparatuses and a further pole for electrical connection to the other of the contacting apparatuses ([0032];
and one point light source (13; [0033])
wherein the contacting apparatuses each have:
[withdrawn embodiments], or
Although Hongming discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the other point light source configured and designed to illuminate the back of the wafer solar cell, and wherein the contacting apparatuses each have: a braid or a network consisting of a multiplicity of electrically conductive wires.
Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Chiu is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches a two-point-light-sources apparatus configured and designed to illuminate both the front and the back of the wafer solar cell ([0019, 21] upper light source 13, lower light source 15; see Fig. 1). Fellmouth further teaches that bifacial panel designs can also be improved on both sides with laser enhanced contact optimization (“LECO” improves both front boron emitter and back n-TOPCon).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the direction and quantity of light sources of Hongming with the additional lower light source suggested by Chiu would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Chiu would be to employ a point light source and an other point light source configured and designed to illuminate the back of the wafer solar cell. The rationale for this obvious modification is that an apparatus with dual-side with exposure provides improved contact quality in a bifacial solar panel designs (including the LECO teachings in Fellmouth).
Additionally, although Hongming in view of Chiu and Fellmouth discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the apparatus wherein the contacting apparatuses each have: a braid or a network consisting of a multiplicity of electrically conductive wires.
Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Hacke is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches apparatus wherein contacting apparatuses each have: a braid or a network consisting of a multiplicity of electrically conductive wires ([0047-48]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the contacting apparatus of Hongming in view of Chiu and Fellmouth with the conductive braid suggested by Hacke would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Hacke would be to employ an apparatus wherein the contacting apparatuses each have: a braid or a network consisting of a multiplicity of electrically conductive wires. The rationale for this obvious modification is that the conductive braid decreases the risk of scratching the solar cell and the strands of the braid may be used to contact a small surface ([0047-48]).
Regarding Claim 4, Hacke, as applied to claim 1, teaches the device wherein the multiplicity of electrically conductive wires are formed from metal and/or a metal alloy ([0048, 51]).
Regarding Claim 5, Hacke, as applied to claim 1, teaches the device according to claim 4, wherein the multiplicity of electrically conductive wires are formed from semi-precious and/or precious metals ([0042, 49]).
Regarding Claim 6, Hongming especially in view of Fellmeth, as applied to claim 1, teaches the device wherein the front contact and the back contact have contact fingers arranged parallel to one another (Hongming [0021] describes contact-grid 5 with busbars 6 and fingers 7 running transverse; Fellmeth section 2 discloses fine-line screen-printed finger-grid structure on the front and rear surfaces), having a contact finger width oriented parallel to the surface of the wafer solar cell and perpendicular to a direction of extent of the contact fingers (Fellmeth section 2 describes finger width openings as 24 microns), and in that the wires of the multiplicity of wires each have a width smaller than the contact finger width (result-effective variable because Hongming is a design that requires light to reach the surface of the solar cell; Chiu and Hacke further teach that the wire diameter is a design parameter to be configured intentionally).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9475. The examiner can normally be reached normally working Monday to Friday between 9 am and 6 pm Eastern Time.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached on (408) 918-7532. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights