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 and Specie I in the reply filed on 07/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected specie, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/18/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho et al. (US 2017/0040480 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses a method of manufacturing a solar module (solar cell panel 100, figs. 1-8), the method comprising:
connecting a metallic interconnector (inter-ribbon 142, fig. 2 and [0032]) to two or more solar cells (solar cell 150, figs. 1-2, [0032]); and
applying a transparent cover sheet (front substrate 110 that is made of light transmitting material, figs 1-2, [0032] and [0065]) to the two or more solar cells (150),
wherein connecting the metallic interconnector (142) to each solar cell (150) of the two or more solar cells (150s) comprises:
providing a solar cell (150) having a bus bar (bus-ribbon body 1450 of bus-ribbon 145) on a surface thereof ([0032]);
providing a metallic interconnector (142) having solder flux on a contact surface thereof (bus-ribbon body 1450 is connected to the inter-ribbon 142 through the solder 1454 and/or black layer 1452, see figure 5-6 and 9);
providing solder (solder 1454, or combination of solder 1454 and black layer 1452) (see figure 5-6 and 9) between the bus bar (145) and the contact surface; and
reflowing the solder to connect the metallic interconnector (142) to the bus bar (1450) (see figure 6 that shows the solder flux is reflowing the side of the bus-ribbon body 1450),
wherein the solder flux comprises a reflective additive (the light is reflected by the solder layer, [0075], and thus comprises reflective material that reads on instant claimed reflective additive).
Regarding claim 17, Cho further discloses that the bus bar comprises a copper pad ([0071), and wherein reflowing the solder (1454 or 1454+1452) connects the metallic interconnector (142) to the copper pad (1450) (see figures 5-6).
Regarding claim 18, Cho further discloses that the metallic interconnector (142) comprises a copper (figures 9-11 and [0132]).
Regarding claim 19, Cho further discloses that the transparent cover sheet (110) comprises glass ([0065]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-4, 6, 9-16 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho as applied above, and further in view of Furukawa et al. (US 2013/0174886 A1).
Regarding claim 2 -4 and 6, Cho further discloses the solder layer (1454) reflects light ([0075]). However, Cho does not disclose the solder layer comprises a white titanium dioxide pigment.
Furukawa discloses a conductive adhesive sheet (1) formed of a conductive adhesive layer (2) and a light reflective layer (3) (fig. 1) to electrically connect two layers (see fig. 4a and [0123]). Cho further discloses the conductive adhesive sheet (1) comprises white titanium dioxide pigment ([0083-0087]) in order to function as a reflective sheet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the conductive adhesive sheet of Furukawa to form the reflective solder layer such that it can be function as reflective layer, as shown by Furukawa and also desired by Cho, as shown by Cho.
With respect to claimed concentration of claim 6, it is noted that “differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical” (MPEP §2144.05 II A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 9-16 and 35, Cho does not disclose the solder layer comprises an acrylic resin binder, a vinyl resin binder, and a dicarboxylic acid activator.
Furukawa discloses a conductive adhesive layer (2) (fig. 2) made of solder ([0036-0041]), and further comprises a resin binder ([0037]) and an activator ([0072-0074]). Cho further discloses the resin comprises acrylic resin binder or vinyl resin binder ([0064]) and the activator comprises a di-carboxylic acid (adipic or sebacic acid, each of which is a dicarboxylic acid, [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the resin and activator as taught by Cho to form the solder adhesive layer of Cho to allow for improved connection with the conductive layers, as disclosed by Furukawa ([0022]).
With respect to claim 13, although Cho as modified by Furukawa does not disclose the use of both acrylic and vinyl resin binders together, MPEP clearly states that “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In reKerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP §2144.06 (I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined both acrylic and vinyl resin binders together to form the resin as taught by Cho in view of Furukawa.
With respect to claimed concentration of claim 10, 12 or 15, it is noted that “differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical” (MPEP §2144.05 II A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 34, Furukawa further discloses the titanium dioxide in spherical shape ([0090]), which is interpreted to read on claimed flake shape as flakes can be spherical.
Alternatively, the configuration of the claimed titanium dioxide was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed 34 was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP §2144.04 IVB.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho as applied above, and further in view of Green et al. (US 2020/0403567 A1).
Regarding claim 36, although Cho discloses that the transparent cover sheet comprises glass ([0065]), Cho does not explicitly disclose the glass is textured glass.
Green discloses a photovoltaic panel (100, fig. 1-4) wherein front substrate (106) is made of glass and is macro-textured ([0044]) to have reduce reflection ([0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have macro-textured glass as taught Green to form the front substrate of Cho such that the reflection of incident light is reduced, as shown by Green.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am - 4pm.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/GOLAM MOWLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721