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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/2025.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, and 11-13 are 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 2 recites the limitation "before step b), a circumferential isolation cut is performed in step k)" in lines 1-2. However, it is unclear how an additional step k) is to be carried out before step b) when method steps are to be listed in chronological order. Additionally, step g) in claim 1 recites laminating a substrate stack formed by performing steps a) to f), such that it is unclear where “step k)” is supposed to be carried out, whether it is before step a) or immediately before step b). Clarification is requested.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the first respectively the second encapsulation foil”. It is unclear what is meant by the first respectively the second encapsulation foil. Additionally, no first respectively second encapsulation foil was previously recited in the claim or claim 1 from which it depends upon. Clarification is requested.
Further, claim 6 recites “the encapsulation foils”. It is unclear if the limitation is referencing both the first and second encapsulation foils or other encapsulation foils without further guidance. Clarification is requested.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “the transparent back respectively front substrate” and “a back respectively front substrate”. It is unclear what these limitations mean. Additionally, it is unclear if the two limitations are directed to different or the same elements. Clarification is requested.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the edges of the substrate stack”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because no edges of the substrate stack have been previously recited. Clarification is requested.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a heated edge protection mass”. However, claim 1 from which claim 12 depends upon already recites an edge protection mass in step i), such that it is unclear if claim 12 is directed to a different edge protection mass that is heated instead of the previously recited edge protection mass. Clarification is requested.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a method for producing a photovoltaic module with edge protection, comprising: using the method according to claim 1 to produce the photovoltaic module with edge protection”, which does not further limit the claimed subject matter in claim 1 that already states “method for producing a photovoltaic module with edge protection”.
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) 1, 3, and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basol (US 2010/0031996) in view of Baker et al. (US 2014/0020734).
Regarding claim 1, Basol discloses a method for producing a photovoltaic module (1) with edge protection (9) comprising at least the following steps:
providing a transparent module substrate (20) comprising a thin film solar module (12) on a first surface of the transparent module substrate (see Figure 1),
applying at least two side busbars (it is disclosed interconnecting conductor wires 3 are used to connect multiple cells into a string ([0022]), such that busbars are present for the conductor wires to electrically connect to the solar cells. Metallic grids are also disclosed to be on the transparent layer 14 ([0007])) to the thin film solar module (see Figures 2A and 2B),
placing a first encapsulation foil (6a) onto the thin film solar module ([0022]; see Figure 2A),
placing a transparent back substrate (7) onto the first encapsulation foil ([0022]; see Figure 2A),
placing a second encapsulation foil (6b) onto a second surface of the transparent module substrate ([0022]; see Figure 2A),
placing a transparent front substrate (8; it is disclosed the protective sheets can both be transparent; [0034]) onto the second encapsulation foil ([0022]; see Figure 2A), and
laminating a substrate stack formed by performing the previous steps ([0021]).
Basol does not expressly disclose placing a pressure mould over the edge of the substrate stack, injecting an edge protection mass into the pressure mould, moving the pressure mould along the edges of the substrate stack to form a circumferential edge protection.
Baker discloses a method for producing a photovoltaic module (100) with edge protection (abstract) comprising at least the following steps:
providing a substrate stack (see Figure 5),
placing a pressure mould (extruder head 230) over the edge of the substrate stack (see Figure 1B),
injecting an edge protection mass (first and second polymer of the extruded edge seal 400; see Figure 1D; [0031]) into the pressure mould ([0031]),
moving the pressure mould along the edges of the substrate stack to form a circumferential edge protection (extruded edge seal 400) (it is disclosed the extruder head 230 travels in direction D1 along the first side edge; [0030]-[0031]; see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the method of providing an edge protection in the method of Basol, as taught by Baker, so that an easier and more robust method for providing an edge seal that may also be used to insulate the edge of a photovoltaic module can be obtained ([0006]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Basol discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a glass substrate is provided for each of the transparent module substrate (it is disclosed substrate 11 can be glass; [0007]), the transparent back substrate and the transparent front substrate (it is disclosed thin film modules with glass front protective sheet and back protective sheet is known in the art; [0009]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Basol discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses before step g), gasses are removed from the substrate stack ([0030]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Basol discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses removing of gasses is achieved by applying a vacuum to the substrate stack or by squeezing the substrate stack between two rollers ([0030]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Basol discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses lamination in step g) is performed as a vacuum hot plate lamination or an autoclave lamination process ([0030]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Basol discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Baker further discloses in step h), the pressure mould placed over the edges of the substrate stack is formed such that it creates a filling space with a curved outer shape extending from an upper surface to a lower surface of the substrate stack (see 400 in Figure 1D).
Regarding claim 12, modified Basol discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Baker further discloses in step i), a heated edge protection mass (311 and 321, as set forth above) is injected into the pressure mould, where the heated edge protection mass is selected out of the group butyl masses, polyolefins, silicon rubbers, polycarbonate, polyamides, polybutene copolymers, polyurethane, ethylene- acrylate-copolymers, ethylene-acrylate-maleic-anhydride terpolymers, ethylene- vinylacetate-maleic-anhydride terpolymers ([0033]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Basol discloses a method for producing a photovoltaic module with edge protection, comprising: using the method according to claim 1 to produce the photovoltaic module with edge protection (as set forth above).
Claim(s) 2, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basol (US 2010/0031996) in view of Baker et al. (US 2014/0020734) in view of Yamagishi et al. (EP 1005096).
Regarding claim 2, modified Basol discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose before step b), a circumferential isolation cut is performed in step k).
Yamagishi discloses forming a periphery isolation (13) to electrically isolate the active region of the solar cell from the peripheral portion at a location 5 mm away from the edge of the substrate ([0047]; see Figures 1 and 3), where the peripheral region of the solar cell has a possibility of being electrically contacted with the frame ([0005]).
Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a circumferential isolation cut in the periphery of the of the thin film solar module of modified Basol, as taught by Yamagishi, so the active region of the thin film solar module can be isolated from the peripheral region to avoid electrical contact with other elements that may come in contact with the edge, such as a frame, as taught by Yamagishi above.
Regarding claim 4, modified Basol discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Yamagishi further discloses the circumferential isolation cut is performed in such a way that the isolation cut has a distance to the circumferential edges of the transparent module substrate in the range of 0.2 mm to 10 mm (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 5, modified Basol discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the at least two side busbars are applied at a distance of at least 5 mm to the circumferential edges of the transparent module substrate, as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose the at least two side busbars are applied such having each a distance in the range of 0 mm to 10 mm to the circumferential edges of the transparent module substrate.
Yamagishi discloses above the desire to form a circumferential isolation cut 5 mm away from the edge of the substrate, where the bus bar (18) is formed as close to the isolation area as possible to maximize the active region of the solar cell (see Figures 1-5).
Therefore, as the active region of the solar cell and the conversion efficiency of the solar cell are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said distance between the two side busbars to the edges of the transparent module substrate, with said active region and conversion efficiency increasing as the distance between the two side busbars to the edges of the transparent module substrate is decreased, the precise distance between the two side busbars to the edges of the transparent module substrate would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed distance between the two side busbars to the edges of the transparent module substrate cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the distance between the two side busbars to the edges of the transparent module substrate in the apparatus of modified Basol to obtain the desired balance between the active region of the solar cell and the conversion efficiency of the solar cell (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Basol (US 2010/0031996) in view of Baker et al. (US 2014/0020734) in view of Funakoshi (CN 101779297; see English machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, modified Basol discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the transparent back respectively front substrate is placed with in-plane dimensions larger than the in-plane dimensions of the transparent module substrate creating a back respectively front substrate overhang along the circumferential edges of the transparent module substrate (see Figure 2A), but the reference does not expressly disclose the overhang is in the range of 2 mm to 5 mm along the circumferential edges of the transparent module substrate.
Funakoshi discloses a distance between the solar cell unit 100 and the frame 120 is 2 mm ([0095]).
As modified Basol is not limited to any specific examples of how much the back and front substrates extend beyond the transparent module substrate and as a distance of 2 mm between the edge of the back and front substrates and the transparent module substrate were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Funakoshi above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable distance between the edge of the back and front substrates and the transparent module substrate, including a distance of 2 mm in the device of modified Basol. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722