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 with traverse of Group I and Species A drawn to Fig. 1 claims, drawn to claims 1-8 and 12-17 in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art does not disclose the special technical feature. This is not found persuasive because as shown below the prior art does disclose the special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-11 and 18-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, III, IV, and V, Species B and Species C, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement 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 13 and 14 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.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “the intermediate connection element” and is dependent on claims 12 and 1, which have no intermediate connection element, therefore the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Claim 13 has an intermediate connection element. Further clarification and 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 (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 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,
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.
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