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
Claim(s) 8-15, 19, and 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (WO 2012/057077).
Note: citations refer to the machine translation of WO ‘077 provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claims 8 and 21:
Yamada WO ‘077 discloses backside electrode type solar cell with wiring board comprising a wiring board 10 comprising an insulating substrate 11 with wiring 12,13 (plurality of electrically conducting pads) provided on a surface and a solar cell 8 (broadly considered to be “a detector”) [abstract; 0001; 0030-0032; Fig. 1]. Additionally, a first insulating adhesive 22 and a second insulating adhesive 23 (both (non-conductive adhesive material) are positioned in spaces defined by the edges of wiring 12,13 (encircling) and a conductive adhesive 21 is positioned on each wiring 12,13, wherein both adhesives contact the solar cell 8 [0032-0036]. The first insulating adhesive 22 presents a dam (wall) that keeps a molten conductive adhesive 21 localized to the electrodes and wiring to provide a stable electrical connection (i.e., the insulating adhesives have a higher viscosity than the molten conductive adhesive) [0126-0130].
PNG
media_image1.png
206
339
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The reference teaches the first insulating adhesive 22 has a height T that varies depending on the thickness of the wiring 12,13, but can be 50 µm or less for wiring having a thickness of 35 µm [0153]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize higher values of height T would be required to accommodate higher wiring thicknesses, such as the example range of up to 50 µm [0077]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to the height of the dam, including over values within falling within the claimed range, to provide an overall solar cell having the desired dimensions with a dam of insulating adhesive that keeps the molten conductive adhesive in place during formation in accordance with Yamada’s teaching, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 22:
The present claims define product-by-process limitations wherein the detector assembly is cured for a predefined period. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The examiner submits the prior art meets the claimed product requirements.
Regarding claims 11 and 23:
The present claims define product-by-process limitations wherein the adhesive materials are cured at a particular temperature range. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The examiner submits the prior art meets the claimed product requirements.
Regarding claim 12:
The amount of conductive adhesive would necessarily be based on the volume of the enclosure formed by the dam of the non-conductive adhesive material.
Regarding claims 13-14, 19, and 24-25:
Although Yamada is silent with regard to the volume of the conductive adhesive, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this volume would be based on the dimensions of the wiring, solar cell, and other components, the desired reliability of the electrical connection, etc. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the volume of the enclosure formed by the dam of the non-conductive adhesive material and the conductive adhesive material, including over values falling within the claimed range, to provide the dimensions, reliability, etc. for a given end use.
Regarding claims 15 and 26:
Yamada teaches an insulating adhesive comprising epoxy [0164].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (WO 2012/057077) in view of Sato (US 2013/0033838)
Regarding claim 16:
Yamada discloses an assembly comprising an insulating adhesive, including an example comprising epoxy, as previously explained.
Yamada is silent with regard to a silicone adhesive.
Such materials were known in the art to have utility. For example, Sato discloses an electronic device comprising a mounting board and a bonding material [abstract; 0001; 0009]. Sato teaches insulating adhesives can be epoxy-based or silicone-based [0082].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a silicone-based adhesive for the epoxy adhesive taught by Yamada given that they were known substitutes for an insulating adhesive, and one of ordinary skill in the art therefore would have a reasonable expectation of success at making such a substitution.
Claim(s) 18 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (WO 2012/057077) in view of Ueda et al. (US 8,087,296)
Regarding claim 18 and 27:
Yamada discloses an assembly comprising a conductive adhesive as previously explained.
Yamada is silent with regard to a conductive adhesive comprising epoxy and silver.
Such materials were known in the art to have utility. For example, Ueda discloses a sensor comprising an electronic component mounted onto a substrate (abstract; 1:5+; 1:45+). Ueda teaches a conductive adhesive comprises a thermosetting resin, wherein known thermosetting resin comprises epoxy, and silver (4:48+).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a known conductive adhesive, including one comprising epoxy and silver, to provide conductive and adhesive properties as known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art therefore would have a reasonable expectation of success at making such a substitution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17, 20, and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Yamada discloses an assembly as described previously. The reference is silent with regard to the feature of an electrically insulated double sided tape and also the feature wherein the non-conductive adhesive material is adapted to electrically isolate pixels of a detector. Nothing of record indicates it would have been obvious to modify the reference to arrive at the claimed features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamada (US 6,409,866) discloses a semiconductor device mounted on a wiring board (abstract; 1:5+). The overall device comprises a wiring board 1 (substrate) with a circuit pattern 10 (electrically conducting pads) formed on its surface and an integrated circuit IC chip 4 (broadly considered to be a “detector”) (abstract; 3:61+; 4:1+; Fig. 1). Furthermore, an insulating adhesive 2 is positioned in the spaces defined by the edges of the circuit pattern 10, wherein the adhesive has a brim 21 (wall), and wherein a conductive adhesive film 3 is placed in a formed concave 20 (4:28+). The brim has a height H that is less than the thickness of the IC chip, but more than the outer diameter of conductive particles (Id.). No specific thicknesses of the IC chip are given. The diameter of the particles is 1-10 µm (3:23+). Example heights are 20 µm or less and a Comparative Examples include one with a height of 200 µm (Table 3 at cols. 7-8 and Table 4 at cols. 9-10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11-8PM EST.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN D FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
