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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adriani (US 2008/0041434 A1) in view of Kato (JP 2010153553 A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 4, Adriani discloses a functional device including a multilayer stack comprising, in succession (See Figs. 1-10):
a first, transparent, protective film (12), arranged on the front side of said device,
an encapsulating assembly (14 and 18 and/or 22),
a second protective film (24/26 or 62), transparent or not, arranged on the back side of the device,
at least one electrically or optically active element (16) embedded in the encapsulating assembly ([0031]), and
an electrical connection element (40 or 42) connected to said electrically or optically active element and suitable for transporting electricity from or to said electrically optically active element, and
wherein the electrical connection element (40 or 42 see Figs. 1-8 same as 108 or 109 see Fig. 10) is integrated into the multilayer stack, in that said electrical connection element comprises an outer sheath free ([0048] the ribbons may be bare metal or comprise an insulating coating which include materials which are free from halogen).
Adriani discloses a listing of compounds for the outer sheath material some of which is include materials which are polymers and free of halogens (polyurethane, epoxy, etc.).
However, Adriani does not explicitly disclose that the outer sheath is free from halogen elements.
Kato discloses a interconnecting cable (201) connected to a solar cell string and an external cable (107 and 108) which leads from the interconnecting cable (201) which are non-halogen containing cables covered with non-halogen containing insulating coatings ([0026]-[0028]) and discloses when these cables are disposed by methods such as incineration or landfill, it is possible to reduce the halogen-based elements such as chlorine, which are sources of harmful substances, and lead components that are harmful to the human body ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the outer sheath of the cable in modified Adriani to be the non-halogen insulation coating as disclosed by Kato because as disclosed by Kato this to reduces the halogen-based elements such as chlorine, which are sources of harmful substances, and lead components that are harmful to the human body.
Adriani discloses that there is no junction box.
With regards to the limitation “as to eliminate the need for an intermediate junction box on the front side or the back side of the functional device” regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 5, modified Adriani discloses all of the claim limitation as set forth above.
In addition, Adriani discloses wherein the encapsulating assembly comprises:
a first outer encapsulating film (14, see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 [0031]),
an inner encapsulating film (18 [0036]), and
a second outer encapsulating film (22 [0033]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Adriani discloses all of the claim limitation as set forth above.
In addition, Adriani discloses wherein the electrical connection element (40) is embedded in an encapsulating material (18 and/or 22, see Figs. 1, 2 and 4) along its passage through said functional device, said encapsulating material being chosen among one or more of the materials forming the inner encapsulating film or the second outer encapsulating film.
Regarding claim 7, modified Adriani discloses all of the claim limitation as set forth above.
In addition, Adriani discloses wherein the second outer encapsulating film (22) comprises a first orifice and the second protective film (24/26) comprises a second orifice, the first orifice and the second orifice being aligned in such a way as to form a through-orifice for the passage of the electrical connection element (40/42) through the second outer encapsulating film and the second protective film (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, modified Adriani discloses all of the claim limitation as set forth above.
Adriani discloses insulation can coat the hole and further discloses that the wiring can also have the insulation coating ([0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the through-orifice by providing the same insulation coating as the wiring cable of modified Adriani because as disclosed by Kato using halogen-free coatings as insulating layers results in removal of sources of harmful substances, and lead components that are harmful to the human body.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adriani (US 2008/0041434 A1) in view of Kato (JP 2010153553 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1 and 3-8 above and in further view of Yamada (US 6,127,622).
Regarding claim 12, modified Adriani discloses all of the claim limitation as set forth above.
However, Adriani does not explicitly disclose wherein a stripped metal end of said electrical connection element is directly welded to an electrically conductive part of said electrically or optically active element.
Adriani discloses that the electrical connection element is a copper ribbon (40/42, [0036] [0047]) that connects to the solar cell.
Yamada discloses that copper wiring (206) can have an end directly welded to backside of solar cell (see column 12, lines 13-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of connecting the copper wiring and solar cell of Adriani by directly connecting them through a spot welding method as disclosed by Yamada because it is known in the art as a method to interconnect copper wiring and a solar cell. The modification would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified Adriani discloses all of the claim limitation as set forth above.
Adriani discloses that the electrical connection element is a copper ribbon (40/42, [0036] [0047]) that connects to the solar cell.
However, Adriani does not disclose wherein a stripped metal end of the electrical connection element is connected to an electrically conductive part of said electrically or optically active by means of an intermediate connection element and wherein the intermediate connection element comprises a terminal.
Yamada disclose wherein a metal end of an electrical connection element (208) is connected to an electrically conductive part of said electrically or optically active by means of an intermediate connection element (106) and wherein the intermediate connection element comprises a terminal (point of connection between 106 and 208) (see column 12, lines 13-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of connecting the copper wiring and solar cell of Adriani by connecting them through an intermediate wiring as disclosed by Yamada because it is known in the art as a method to interconnect copper wiring and a solar cell. The modification would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adriani (US 2008/0041434 A1) in view of Kato (JP 2010153553 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1 and 3-8 above and in further view of Clancy (US 2016/0260524 A1).
Regarding 15 and 17, modified Adriani discloses all of the claim limitation as set forth above.
Adriani discloses that a ribbon or wiring can be used for connection members (40, 42) [0036].
Kato discloses cables with halogen-free insulation coating can be used for the same type of connection members as Adriani (107 and 108 and 201 [0026]-[0028]).
However, neither reference discloses that the cross-section is round or wherein the electrical connection element has a cross-section less than or equal to 2.5 mm2.
Clancy discloses a halogen free insulation coating surrounding a conductor which forms a halogen-free cable that can be used for solar application with a round cross-section that has a cross sectional area less than or equal to 0.82 mm2 ([0038], see Figs. 1 [0032]-[0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the cross section and the cross-sectional area of modified Adriani to use the dimensions and shape as disclosed by Clancy because Clancy discloses that this is appropriate dimension and shape used for solar application.
The modification would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adriani (US 2008/0041434 A1) in view of Kato (JP 2010153553 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1 and 3-8 above and in further view of Reul (US 20180330845 A1) and Liu (CN 103194014 A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 16, modified Adriani discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Reul discloses that a electrical connection cable (5 [0021][0093][0094]) can be round or a flat woven braid and covered with a heat shrinkable tube (6 [0099]) and that the heat shrinkable tube can be formed out of polyolefins ([0036]).
Liu discloses that heat shrinkable tubing can be formed of a halogen free polyolefin coating for a conductive cable used for photovoltaic applications ([0004][0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the cable and insulation coating of modified Adriani to use a flat woven braid cable with a heat shrinkable tube insulation coating as disclosed by Reul and to modify the material of the insulation coating so it also non-halogen as disclosed by Liu because as disclosed by Liu using non-halogen cabling is appropriate to interconnect solar cells within module and modules to each other and environmentally friendly.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adriani (US 2008/0041434 A1) in view of Kato (JP 2010153553 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1 and 3-8 above Takeoka (JP H05152596 A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 2, modified Adriani discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Adriani does not disclose said photovoltaic cell being connected to at least one bypass diode embedded in the encapsulating assembly.
Takeoka discloses a bypass diode can be position within an encapsulating assembly (see 4 inside of 3 [0014]) and that the bypass diode serves to protect the solar cell against reverse voltage ([0007][0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the solar module of modified Adriani by including a bypass diode in the encapsulant assembly as disclosed by Takeoka because Takeoka discloses that the bypass diode serves to protect the solar cell.
Response to Arguments
Applicant notes it is specified that openings 30 of Adriani are made in the backsheet 20 to allow an electrical wire to extend outward. As shown in Figure 2, these electrical wires are used for the electrical coupling of the module to adjacent modules without passing through a junction box. The material of the insulating layers 50, 52 encapsulated in the modules is not specified. The Office Action notes that insulating materials are taught elsewhere (epoxy ... ), that some of these materials are halogen-free, but that they are used for other components. There is indeed no mention whatsoever that they could be employed for the insulating layers 50, 52.
Adriani discloses with respect to the optional coatings 50/52 around 40/42 the wires or ribbons 40 and 42 may themselves have a coating or layer to electrically insulate themselves from the backsheet 20 [0036]. In paragraph [0048] This on-site soldering may be implemented with moisture protection around the ribbons 108 and 109. As seen in FIG. 10, some type of encapsulant such as but not limited to an epoxy, flexiblized epoxy, butyl rubber, silicone, electrical tape, harsh-environment electrical tape, polyurethane, hot melt olefin, acrylic, fluoropolymer, thermoplastic elastomer, amorphous polyester, heat shrink tubing, adhesive-filled heat shrink tubing, solder filled heat shrink tubing, or combinations thereof may be formed on or wrapped about the connection 126 to create a moisture proof barrier 128. The moisture proof coatings recited by Adriani include epoxy and polyurethane which are non-halogen containing coatings. These moisture proof coatings on wiring are also coatings which serve to insulate the wiring which is the purpose of coatings 50/52.
Applicant argues that Kato uses a terminal box. As shown in figure 2 of Kato, non-halogen cables used as connection cables 201 connect the different modules to each other within a solar cell array. The roof material 202 serves as a shielding object to protect cables 107 and 201 from ultraviolet rays in order to reduce their deterioration. However, the cables are not integrated into the solar module, which explains why terminal boxes are used. As regards the proposed combination of Adriani and Kato, Applicant respectfully submits that proposed combination is based on impermissible hindsight, as it fails to recognize the specific technical problem solved by the claimed invention and the divergent, non-complementary teachings of the applied references.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Kato discloses insulated wiring cables (201 and 107) which are non-halogen containing cables covered with non-halogen containing insulating coatings ([0026]-[0028]) and discloses when these cables are disposed by methods such as incineration or landfill, it is possible to reduce the halogen-based elements such as chlorine, which are sources of harmful substances, and lead components that are harmful to the human body ([0028]). Kato further discloses materials which overlap with those suggested by Adriani which include materials such as olefin resin, thermoplastic elastomer, and rubber [0027]. Therefore there is a teaching, suggestion, motivation provided by Kato to use the non-halogen coatings on the wirings disclosed by Adriani.
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention addresses the critical technical challenge of ensuring a robust and reliable seal at the point where the electrical connection element directly exits the encapsulating assembly in a junction-box-free design. As disclosed in the present specification, the use of a halogen-free outer sheath provides for "good adherence between the encapsulating assembly ... and the outer sheath," which is an "essential factor to ensure a good seal and avoid the risk of delamination" (see, numbered paragraph [0014] on
page 3 of the present specification).
The fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues a person of ordinary skill in the art, starting from Adriani's junction-box-free module, would be focused on solving this specific sealing challenge, which is created by the very absence of a junction box. Kato, however, is entirely silent on this issue. Kato discloses a conventional module architecture that retains a terminal box (106, see Fig. 1), which inherently manages the sealing of the cable exit. As Kato is not concerned with the problem of direct cable-to-encapsulant adhesion, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no apparent reason to consult Kato to solve this problem.
Adriani discloses that junction boxes can be used in any of the modules disclosed (see Fig. 11 versus Fig. 9 and [0050]) and irrespective of the presence of a junction box the wirings 40/42 remain.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues Adriani and Kato solve different and unrelated problems. Adriani is concerned with the structural and economic problem of eliminating the junction box to reduce costs and simplify large-scale installations. In contrast, Kato is concerned with the unrelated environmental problem of material composition for end-of-life disposal, and implements its solution within a conventional design that retains the very junction box Adriani seeks to eliminate. Furthermore, Adriani teaches away from Kato' s solution by suggesting the use of halogen-containing materials such as fluoropolymers (e.g., Tefzel®, PEP) for the module's layers (Adriani, [0031]). This would actively discourage a skilled artisan from modifying Adriani's design with a halogen-free material. The halogenated fluoropolymers listed by Adriani are recognized as high-performance materials offering excellent durability and chemical resistance. A person of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to create a robust and inexpensive module as taught by Adriani, would view these materials as preferable technical choices. There is therefore no reason why the skilled person would have been motivated to specifically avoid these high-performance options to pursue an environmental benefit that Adriani does not even contemplate. In fact, presenting these performant halogenated materials as viable options teaches away from a design choice that would deliberately exclude them. Thus, the incidental presence of non-halogenated materials in Adriani' s generic list does not provide the necessary motivation to combine its teaching with Kato in the manner proposed by the Office Action.
Adriani discloses that junction boxes can be used in any of the modules disclosed (see Fig. 11 versus Fig. 9 and [0050]) and irrespective of the presence of a junction box the wirings 40/42 remain. Adriani discloses with respect to the optional coatings 50/52 around 40/42 that the coatings serve to electrically insulate themselves from the backsheet 20 [0036]. In paragraph [0048] Adriani further discloses "This on-site soldering may be implemented with moisture protection around the ribbons 108 and 109. As seen in FIG. 10, some type of encapsulant such as but not limited to an epoxy, flexiblized epoxy, butyl rubber, silicone, electrical tape, harsh-environment electrical tape, polyurethane, hot melt olefin, acrylic, fluoropolymer, thermoplastic elastomer, amorphous polyester, heat shrink tubing, adhesive-filled heat shrink tubing, solder filled heat shrink tubing, or combinations thereof may be formed on or wrapped about the connection 126 to create a moisture proof barrier 128." The moisture proof coatings recited by Adriani include epoxy, butyl rubber, silicone, polyurethane, hot melt olefin, and thermoplastic elastomer which are non-halogen containing coatings. These moisture proof coatings on wiring are also coatings which serve to insulate the wiring which is the purpose of coatings 50/52.Therefore, Adriani discloses an insulated wiring coating can be used in a solar panel without a junction box and as described above the insulating coatings can include epoxy, butyl rubber, silicone, polyurethane, hot melt olefin, and thermoplastic elastomer.
Kato discloses insulated wiring cables (201 and 107) which are non-halogen containing cables covered with non-halogen containing insulating coatings ([0026]-[0028]) and discloses when these cables are disposed by methods such as incineration or landfill, it is possible to reduce the halogen-based elements such as chlorine, which are sources of harmful substances, and lead components that are harmful to the human body ([0028]). Kato further discloses materials which overlap with those suggested by Adriani which include materials such as olefin resin, thermoplastic elastomer, and rubber not containing halogen elements such as fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine [0027]. Therefore there is a teaching, suggestion, motivation provided by Kato to use the non-halogen coatings on the wirings disclosed by Adriani.
Conclusion
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). 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 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
Prosecution Insights