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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4 and 11-13 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, Species A-2, and B-2 and B-3 , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/24/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, A-1, and B-1, claims 1-3 and 5-9 in the reply filed on 12/24/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites “the first electrode layer” which lacks antecedent basis. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Floedl (DE 4030713 A1, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Floedl discloses a photoelectric conversion module comprising (see Fig. 2 and [0001]-[0015] and claims 1-7):
a first photoelectric conversion element (11, see Fig. 2 [0013]);
a second photoelectric conversion element (10, see Fig. 2 [0013]); and
a connector (1, see Fig. 2 [0013]), wherein the first photoelectric conversion element and the second photoelectric conversion element are arranged side by side so as to partially overlap each other (see Fig. 2),
the connector is connected to the first photoelectric conversion element (11) at a first connection portion (4, see Fig. 2 [0013]),
the connector is connected to the second photoelectric conversion (10, see Fig. 2) element at a second connection portion (6, see Fig. 2 [0013]) away from the first connection portion (4, see Fig. 2), and
the second connection portion of the connector (6) is provided in a region that does not contribute to photoelectric conversion (provided at underside of second photoelectric conversion) in the second photoelectric conversion element as viewed in a thickness direction.
Regarding claim 2, Floedl discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Floedl discloses wherein the first connection portion is provided in a region between the first photoelectric conversion element (11, see Fig. 2) and the second photoelectric conversion element (10, see Fig. 2), and the second connection portion (6) is provided at a position not overlapping the first photoelectric conversion element (11, see Fig. 2) as viewed in the thickness direction.
Regarding claim 3, Floedl discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Floedl discloses wherein the first photoelectric conversion element (11, see Fig. 2) includes a collector electrode (2), and the connector (1) is connected to a connection pad (5) provided on the collector electrode (2).
Regarding claim 5, Floedl discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Floedl discloses wherein the second photoelectric conversion element includes a conductive substrate (11, semiconducting substrate of solar cell), and the connector (4) is connected to a connection pad (5 and 2) provided on the conductive substrate (11).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Floedl (DE 4030713 A1, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1-3 and 5 above in view of Lee (US 2019/0081185 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Floedl discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Floedl does not disclose the second photoelectric conversion element (10, see Fig. 2) includes a collector electrode including: a plurality of substantially linear first portions.
Lee discloses an overlapped shingled photovoltaic cell arrangement (10) wherein the rear electrode of photoelectric conversion element comprises a multiple linear portions (44a, see Fig. 4 and Fig. 3 [0022][0044]) and the grid is connected to connection bus (44b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the front electrode of Floedl to include a multiple linear portions to a connection bus as disclosed by Lee because it is an effective conductive structure for photovoltaic solar cells which are arranged in a shingled manner.
Modified Floedl now discloses the second photoelectric conversion element (10, see Fig. 2) a first portion of a collector electrode (multiple linear portions, through modification above) and a second portion of a collector electrode (pad portion, see Fig. 2, 3) and the second connection portion (6) of the connector is provided at a position overlapping the second portion (see Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Floedl (DE 4030713 A1, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1-3 and 5 above in view of Fessehatzion (US 20200028013 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Floedl discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Floedl does not disclose wherein the connector includes an insulator between the first connection portion and the second connection portion.
Fessehatzion discloses a first connection portion and a second connection which can be placed on shingled overlapped solar cells which are separated by an interconnection section which includes coatings 16 and 14 above and below the interconnection section ([0023][0033]) and these layer act to further insulate ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the connector of Floedl to include top and bottom insulation layers as disclosed by Fessehatzion because it will electrically insulate and protect the electrical connection.
Regarding claim 8, modified Floedl discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, modified Floedl discloses that the first photoelectric conversion element (11, see Fig. 2) includes:
a first electrode layer (2);
a second electrode layer (3); and
a photoelectric conversion layer (11) between the first electrode layer (2) and the second electrode layer (3), and the insulator covers (note modification above, insulator is on top and bottom surfaces of 1 except for sections which contact 5 and 7) at least one end portion of the first electrode layer (2) of the first photoelectric conversion element (11) and the photoelectric conversion layer of the first photoelectric conversion element, said end portion being located in a region between the first connection portion (4) and the second connection portion (6) when viewed from the thickness direction.
Regarding claim 9, modified Floedl discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Floedl discloses wherein the first photoelectric conversion element (11, see Fig. 2) includes a conductive substrate (11, semiconductive substrate) connected to the first electrode layer (2) of the first photoelectric conversion element, and the insulator (note modification above, insulator is on top and bottom surfaces of 1 except for sections which contact 5 and 7) covers an end portion of the conductive substrate of the first photoelectric conversion element, the end portion being located in a region between the first connection portion (4) and the second connection portion (6) as viewed in the thickness direction.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-3 and 5-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/697,072. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recited substantially the same photoelectric conversion module.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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 T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726