DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 18/761,032, filed 7/1/2024, which is a divisional application of 17/527,285, filed 11/16/2021, which claims priority to provisional application 63/115,989, filed 11/19/2020.
Claims 1-15 are pending, and are considered herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0178704 A1: This reference teaches a solar module with a reflective layer disposed directly on the rear surface of the cells (Figs. 20-21).
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 1-10 and 13-15 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.
Claims 1 and 6-10 recite “the protection coating.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, because Claim 1 recites that “each solar cell of the plurality of solar cells having a protection coating on an outermost surface of the solar cell.” Therefore, because it appears that Claim 1 requires multiple protection coatings, it is unclear to which of the “protection coatings” is referred in Claims 1, 3, and 6-10.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the contact bond line has a thickness greater than a thickness of the contact bond line.” This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear how a thickness of the same item can be thicker than itself.
Claims 2-10 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 1.
Claims 13 and 15 recite “the protection coating.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, because Claim 13 recites that “each solar cell of the plurality of solar cells having a protection coating on a surface of the solar cell.” Therefore, because it appears that Claim 13 requires multiple protection coatings, it is unclear to which of the “protection coatings” is referred in Claims 13 and 15.
Claims 14-15 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3, 7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lillebo, et al. (WO2011/152734 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Lillebo teaches a solar module (page 1, lines 21-27, page 2, lines 20-25, with details of the embodiment discussed in Example 2, page 4, shown in Fig. 2).
The module of Lillebo comprises a plurality of solar cells (page 1, lines 21-27).
Fig. 2 teaches that each solar cell of the plurality of solar cells has a protection coating 2 on an outermost surface of the solar cell, the protection coating comprising a polymer and having a pattern with a plurality of cutouts that expose the outermost surface of the solar cell (Example 2, page 4, shown in Fig. 2).
Lillebo teaches that the modules of his invention comprise an encapsulant that encapsulates the plurality of solar cells (page 3, lines 25-30).
In reference to Claim 3, Lillebo teaches that the protection coating comprises a thermoset material (i.e. epoxy, Example 2, page 4).
In reference to Claim 7, Lillebo teaches that the pattern of the protection coating is a mesh pattern and the cutouts are rectangular (Fig. 2).
In reference to Claim 10, Lillebo teaches that the protection coating 2 is disposed on a back side surface of the solar cell (Example 2, page 4).
In reference to Claim 11, Lillebo teaches a solar module (page 1, lines 21-27, page 2, lines 20-25, with details of the embodiment discussed in Example 1, page 3, shown in Fig. 1).
The module of Lillebo comprises a plurality of solar cells (page 1, lines 21-27).
Fig. 1 teaches that each solar cell of the plurality of solar cells has a plurality of protection coatings (i.e. separate areas 2) on a surface of the solar cell.
Lillebo teaches that the plurality of protection coatings 2 comprising a polymer (Example 1, page 3, shown in Fig. 1).
Lillebo teaches that the plurality of protection coatings 2 are arranged to expose the surface of the solar cell in spaces between adjacent protection coatings (i.e. to expose the electrical contacts of the solar cell, Fig. 1, Example 1, page 3).
Lillebo teaches that the modules of his invention comprise an encapsulant that encapsulates the plurality of solar cells (page 3, lines 25-30).
In reference to Claim 12, Lillebo teaches that the polymer comprises a thermoset material, i.e. an acrylate, Example 1, page 3).
Claims 1-2, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barth, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0212725 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Barth teaches a solar module (Figs. 17-18, paragraphs [0099]-[0100]).
The module of Barth comprises a plurality of solar cells (i.e. the plurality of interconnected cells in photovoltaic structure 4000, Figs. 17-18, described in paragraph [0076]).
The solar cell structure is interpreted to include all layers 4000/6100/5000 in Figs. 17-18.
Fig. 18 teaches that each solar cell of the plurality of solar cells has a protection coating 7200 on an outermost surface of the solar cell.
Barth teaches that the protection coating 7200 comprises a polymer (paragraph [0095]) and has a pattern with a plurality of cutouts (i.e. the openings in the mesh 7200, Fig. 18) that expose the outermost surface of the solar cell 4000/6100/5000.
The module of Barth comprises an encapsulant 6200 that encapsulates the plurality of solar cells (Fig. 18, paragraph [0088]).
In reference to Claim 2, Barth teaches that the module further comprises a back layer 2000/3000 that faces towards back sides of the plurality of solar cells; and a transparent layer 1000 that faces towards front sides of the plurality of solar cells (Fig. 18, paragraph [0095]).
In reference to Claim 13, Barth teaches a solar module (Figs. 23-24, paragraphs [0106]-[0110]).
The module of Barth comprises a plurality of solar cells (i.e. the plurality of interconnected cells in photovoltaic structure 4000, Figs. 23-24, described in paragraph [0076]).
Figs. 23-24 teach that each solar cell of the plurality of solar cells has a protection coating on a surface of the solar cell, corresponding to the multi-layered structure 7000/8000 (paragraph [0107]).
Barth teaches that the protection coating 7000/8000 comprises a polymer (i.e. polymer ribbing 8000, paragraph [0107]).
Barth teaches that the module comprises an encapsulant 6000 that encapsulates the plurality of solar cells in layer 4000 (Figs. 23-24, paragraphs [0068], [0107]).
Barth teaches that the module comprises a back layer 200 disposed towards back sides of the plurality of solar cells (Figs. 23-24, paragraph [0107]).
Barth teaches that the module comprises a transparent layer (i.e. front substrate 1000) disposed towards front sides of the plurality of solar cells (Figs. 23-24, paragraph [0107]).
In reference to Claim 15, Barth teaches that the protection coating 7000/8000 has a pattern that through which contact structures 5000 of the plurality of solar cells protrude (Figs. 23-24, paragraph [0109]).
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.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barth, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0212725 A1), in view of Lillebo, et al. (WO2011/152734 A1).
In reference to Claim 3, Barth does not teach that the polymer of the protection coating 7200 comprises a thermoset material.
However, he teaches that layer 7200 is a polymeric reinforcement layer (paragraph [0095]).
To solve the same problem of providing a polymer reinforcement material for a solar cell, Lillebo teaches that a thermoset material (i.e., epoxy) is a type of polymer suitable for use in producing polymeric reinforcing layers for solar cells (Lillebo, Example 2, page 4).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used epoxy in the polymeric reinforcement layer 7200 of the device of Barth, because Lillebo teaches that epoxy is a suitable material for such a layer.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 3, wherein the polymer of the protection coating 7200 comprises a thermoset material (i.e. epoxy).
In reference to Claim 14, Barth does not teach that the polymer of the protection coating 7000/8000 comprises a thermoset material.
However, he teaches that layer 7000 is a polymeric reinforcement layer (paragraph [0095]).
To solve the same problem of providing a polymer reinforcement material for a solar cell, Lillebo teaches that a thermoset material is a type of polymer suitable for use in producing polymeric reinforcing layers for solar cells (i.e. epoxy, Lillebo, Example 2, page 4).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used epoxy in the polymeric reinforcement layer 7000 of the device of Barth, because Lillebo teaches that epoxy is a suitable material for such a layer.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 14, wherein the polymer of the protection coating 7000/8000 comprises a thermoset material (i.e. epoxy).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillebo, et al. (WO2011/152734 A1), in view of Demonte, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0303568 A1).
In reference to Claim 8, Lillebo teaches that the pattern of the protection coating is a mesh pattern (Fig. 2).
Lillebo does not teach that the cutouts are hexagonal.
However, he teaches that the pattern of the protection coating may be “any type of pattern” (page 3, line 5).
To solve the same problem of providing a mesh layer on a surface of a solar cell, Demonte teaches that suitable mesh shapes for such a layer include hexagonal shapes (paragraph [0039]) and rectangular shapes (Fig. 4).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the device of Lillebo to have the mesh cutouts have a hexagonal shape, because (1) Lillebo does not limit the shape of the cutouts, and (2) Demonte teaches that suitable mesh shapes for a mesh layer on a solar cell include hexagonal shapes (paragraph [0039]) and rectangular shapes (Fig. 4).
The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillebo, et al. (WO2011/152734 A1).
In reference to Claim 9, in the embodiment of Example 2, Lillebo does not teach that the protection coating is disposed on a front side surface of the solar cell.
However, he teaches that the protection coatings of his invention may suitably be applied to the front surface, the rear surface, or both surfaces of the devices of his invention (page 3, lines 4-6).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was field to have modified the device of Lillebo to include a protection coating on the front surface of the solar cell, because he teaches that this is a suitable configuration for the solar cells of his invention.
Including a protection coating on the front surface of the solar cell of Lillebo teaches the limitations of Claim 9, wherein the protection coating is disposed on a front side surface of the solar cell.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0358693 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Moon teaches a solar module (Figs. 18-19, paragraphs [0209]-[0214]).
The module of Moon comprises a plurality of solar cells 100C (Figs. 18-19, paragraph [0210]).
Figs. 18-19 teach that each solar cell of the plurality of solar cells has a protection coating 140 on an outermost surface of the solar cell (paragraph [0211]).
Moon teaches that the insulating substrates/protection coatings of his invention are made of polymers (paragraph [0014]).
Therefore, Moon teaches that the protection coating 140 comprises a polymer.
Moon teaches that the protection coatings 140 have holes 141 locally formed along the electrodes (paragraph [0211]). One of such holes is shown in Fig. 19.
Therefore, Moon teaches that the protection coating has a pattern with a plurality of cutouts 141 that expose the outermost surface of the solar cell.
In the embodiment of Figs. 18-19, Moon does not explicitly teach that the module has an encapsulant.
However, in his general disclosure, he teaches that the modules of his invention are encapsulated between front and back substrates (paragraphs [0036]-[0038]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have encapsulated the module of Figs. 18-19 between a front and rear substrate using an encapsulant, because Moon teaches that the modules of his invention may suitably be encapsulated in such a manner.
Encapsulating the module of Figs. 18-19 between a front and rear substrate using an encapsulant teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the module comprises an encapsulant that encapsulates the plurality of solar cells.
Encapsulating the module of Figs. 18-19 between a front and rear substrate using an encapsulant teaches the limitations of Claim 2, wherein the module further comprises a back layer that faces towards back sides of the plurality of solar cells (corresponding to the back substrate, paragraph [0036]); and a transparent layer that faces towards front sides of the plurality of solar cells (corresponding to the back substrate, paragraph [0036]).
In reference to Claim 4, Fig. 18 teaches that the plurality of solar cells is arranged in a shingled configuration such that edge portions of adjacent solar cells overlap along a contact bond line.
In reference to Claim 5, Moon teaches that the plurality of solar cells is interconnected by way of electrically conductive adhesives 611 (paragraph [0211]).
In reference to Claim 6, Moon teaches that the protection coating 140 has a thickness between 10-300 μm (paragraph [0014]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 6, wherein the protection coating has a thickness between 5-100 μm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. In the instant case, the claimed range of “5-100 μm” overlaps with the taught range of 10-300 μm.
It is noted that the limitations “the contact bond line has a thickness greater than a thickness of the contact bond line” are indefinite.
The inset below teaches that the contact bond line has a thickness greater than a thickness of the protection coating.
PNG
media_image1.png
376
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 9, Moon teaches that the protection coating 140 is disposed on the front side of the solar cell (i.e. in the shingled stack, Fig. 18).
In reference to Claim 10, Moon teaches that the protection coating 140 is disposed on a back side surface of the solar cell (Figs. 18-19).
In reference to Claim 13, Moon teaches a solar module (Figs. 18-19, paragraphs [0209]-[0214]).
The module of Moon comprises a plurality of solar cells 100C (Figs. 18-19, paragraph [0210]).
Figs. 18-19 teach that each solar cell of the plurality of solar cells has a protection coating 140 on a surface of the solar cell (paragraph [0211]).
Moon teaches that the insulating substrates/protection coatings of his invention are made of polymers (paragraph [0014]).
Therefore, Moon teaches that the protection coating 140 comprises a polymer.
In the embodiment of Figs. 18-19, Moon does not explicitly teach that the module has an encapsulant.
However, in his general disclosure, he teaches that the modules of his invention are encapsulated between front and back substrates (paragraphs [0036]-[0038]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have encapsulated the module of Figs. 18-19 between a front and rear substrate using an encapsulant, because Moon teaches that the modules of his invention may suitably be encapsulated in such a manner.
Encapsulating the module of Figs. 18-19 between a front and rear substrate using an encapsulant teaches the limitations of Claim 13, wherein the module comprises an encapsulant that encapsulates the plurality of solar cells, a back layer disposed towards back sides of the plurality of solar cells (i.e. the rear substrate) and a transparent layer disposed towards front sides of the plurality of solar cells (i.e. the front substrate).
In reference to Claim 15, Moon teaches that the protection coatings 140 have holes 141 locally formed along the electrodes (paragraph [0211]). One of such holes is shown in Fig. 19.
Therefore, Moon teaches that the protection coating has a pattern that through which contact structures 600 of the plurality of solar cells protrude.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721