DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action 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 1-3, 5-7, and 9-14 are pending, and are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments filed 7/23/2026, the prior art rejections of record are withdrawn, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are modified, and new grounds of rejection are presented herein.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 2009/0111206 A1: This reference teaches overlapping solar cells connected with conductive adhesives (Figs. 24-25).
U.S. Patent 4,609,770: This reference teaches overlapping solar cells connected with conductive adhesives (Figs. 6 and 8).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0121228 A1: This reference teaches overlapping solar cells connected with conductive adhesives (Fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3, 5-7, 9-10, and 13-14 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.
Claim 3 recites “the dielectric polymer protection coating.” This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 1 recites a plurality of cells, each of which comprises a respective dielectric polymer protection coating. Therefore, it is unclear to which dielectric polymer protection coating is referred by Claim 3.
Claim 5 recites “the dielectric polymer protection coating.” This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 1 recites a plurality of cells, each of which comprises a respective dielectric polymer protection coating. Therefore, it is unclear to which dielectric polymer protection coating is referred by Claim 5.
Claim 6 recites “the dielectric polymer protection coating.” This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 1 recites a plurality of cells, each of which comprises a respective dielectric polymer protection coating. Therefore, it is unclear to which dielectric polymer protection coating is referred by Claim 6.
Claim 7 recites “the dielectric polymer protection coating.” This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 1 recites a plurality of cells, each of which comprises a respective dielectric polymer protection coating. Therefore, it is unclear to which dielectric polymer protection coating is referred by Claim 7.
Claim 9 recites “the dielectric polymer protection coating.” This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 1 recites a plurality of cells, each of which comprises a respective dielectric polymer protection coating. Therefore, it is unclear to which dielectric polymer protection coating is referred by Claim 9.
Claim 9 further recites “the solar cell.” This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 1 recites a plurality of cells. Therefore, it is unclear to which cell is referred by Claim 9.
Claim 10 recites “the dielectric polymer protection coating.” This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 1 recites a plurality of cells, each of which comprises a respective dielectric polymer protection coating. Therefore, it is unclear to which dielectric polymer protection coating is referred by Claim 10.
Claim 10 further recites “the solar cell.” This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 1 recites a plurality of cells. Therefore, it is unclear to which cell is referred by Claim 10.
Claim 13 recites “the dielectric polymer protection coating” in line 10. This limitation is indefinite, because there is a prior recitation in Claim 13 of a plurality of cells, each of which comprises a dielectric polymer protection coating. Therefore, it is unclear to which protection coating is referred in line 10 of Claim 13.
Claim 14 is indefinite, because of its dependence on Claim 13.
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 1-3, 5-7, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinarbisi, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0125391 A1), in view of Nguyen, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0044599 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Pinarbisi teaches a solar module (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0033]-[0036]).
The module of Pinarbisi comprises a plurality of solar cells 100A and 100B (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4 teaches that each solar cell comprises a respective dielectric polymer protection coating 140 on an outermost surface of the solar cell (paragraph [0032]).
Pinarbisi teaches that this polymer protection coating 140 is a polymer (paragraph [032]).
The embodiment of Fig. 4 does not teach that the dielectric polymer protection coating 140 comprises a pattern with a plurality of cutouts that expose the outermost surface of the solar cell.
However, he teaches that a suitable embodiment for the polymer protection coating layer includes a structure 130 comprising a pattern with a plurality of cutouts that expose the outermost surface of the solar cell (Fig. 3A, paragraph [0032]).
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 formed the dielectric polymer protection coating of Fig. 4 to have the structure shown in Fig. 3A, because Pinarbisi teaches that this is a suitable form of the dielectric polymer protection coating of his invention.
Forming the dielectric polymer protection coating of Fig. 4 to have the structure shown in Fig. 3A teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the dielectric polymer protection coating comprises a pattern with a plurality of cutouts that expose the outermost surface of the solar cell (Pinarbisi, Fig. 3A).
Fig. 4 of Pinarbisi 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.
Fig. 4B teaches that contact structures (i.e. contact regions 120A) of the solar cells protrude through the cutouts along the contact bond line (paragraph [0034]).
Pinarbisi teaches that the plurality of solar cells is electrically interconnected by electrically conductive adhesive 124A disposed along the contact bond line (Fig. 4, paragraph [0034]).
Pinarbisi does not teach that the module of his invention comprises an encapsulant that encapsulates the plurality of solar cells.
To solve the same problem of providing a shingled solar module, Nguyen teaches that encapsulating shingled solar cells between glass front covers and back sheets with gaps between cells filled with encapsulant provides the benefit of protecting the solar cell structures from weather (paragraph [0051]).
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 solar cells of Pinarbisi between glass front covers and back sheets with gaps between cells filled with encapsulant, based on the disclosure of Nguyen.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the module comprises an encapsulant that encapsulates the plurality of solar cells.
This modification 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; and a transparent layer that faces towards front sides of the plurality of solar cells.
In reference to Claim 3, modified Pinarbisi does not teach that the dielectric polymer protection coating necessarily comprises a thermoset material.
However, he teaches that the dielectric polymer protection coating may suitably comprise a thermoset material (paragraph [0032]).
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 formed the dielectric polymer protection coating of modified Pinarbisi from a thermoset material, because he teaches that the dielectric polymer protection coating may suitably comprise a thermoset material (paragraph [0032]).
In reference to Claim 5, Fig. 4 of Pinarbisi teaches that the electrically conductive adhesive 124A directly contacts the contact structures 120A protruding through the cutouts.
In reference to Claim 6, Pinarbisi teaches that the thickness of the conductive material layer is constrained by the polymeric insulating layer to be 80-100 microns thick (paragraph [0036]).
This disclosure teaches that the thickness of the insulating protection coating is 80-100 microns, as well, which teaches the limitations of Claim 6, wherein the dielectric polymer protection coating has a thickness of 5-100 microns.
Fig. 4A of Pinarbisi further teaches that the conductive bond line has a thickness (i.e. the lateral thickness of layer 124A) greater than a thickness of the dielectric polymer protection coating (i.e. a thickness of one outer perimeter region of the dielectric polymer protection coating, as shown in the inset below).
PNG
media_image1.png
385
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 7, Fig. 3A of Pinarbisi teaches that the polymer protection mesh coating is a mesh pattern.
In reference to Claim 9, Fig. 4 of Pinarbisi teaches that the dielectric polymer protection coating is disposed on a front side surface of the solar cell.
In reference to Claim 10, Fig. 4 of Pinarbisi teaches that the dielectric polymer protection coating is disposed on a back side surface of the solar cell (i.e. a back side of the top solar cell, and/or indirectly on the back side of the bottom solar cell).
In reference to Claim 11, Pinarbisi teaches a solar module (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0033]-[0036]).
The module of Pinarbisi comprises a plurality of solar cells 100A and 100B (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4 teaches that each solar cell comprises a dielectric polymer protection coating 140 on an outermost surface of the solar cell (paragraph [0032]).
Pinarbisi teaches that this polymer protection coating 140 is a polymer (paragraph [032]).
The embodiment of Fig. 4 does not teach that the dielectric polymer protection coating comprises a plurality of dielectric polymer protection coatings arranged to expose the surface of the solar cell in spaces between adjacent protection coatings.
However, he teaches that a suitable embodiment for the polymer protection coating layer includes a structure 150 comprising a plurality of dielectric polymer protection coatings arranged to expose the surface of the solar cell in spaces between adjacent protection coatings (Fig. 3C, paragraph [0032]).
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 formed the dielectric polymer protection coating of Fig. 4 to have the structure shown in Fig. 3C, because Pinarbisi teaches that this is a suitable form of the dielectric polymer protection coating of his invention.
Forming the dielectric polymer protection coating of Fig. 4 to have the structure shown in Fig. 3A teaches the limitations of Claim 11, wherein the dielectric polymer protection coating comprises a plurality of dielectric polymer protection coatings arranged to expose the surface of the solar cell in spaces between adjacent protection coatings (Pinarbisi, Fig. 3C).
Fig. 4 of Pinarbisi 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.
Fig. 4B teaches that contact structures (i.e. contact regions 120A) of the solar cells protrude through the spaces between adjacent protection coatings (paragraph [0034]).
Pinarbisi does not teach that the module of his invention comprises an encapsulant that encapsulates the plurality of solar cells.
To solve the same problem of providing a shingled solar module, Nguyen teaches that encapsulating shingled solar cells between glass front covers and back sheets with gaps between cells filled with encapsulant provides the benefit of protecting the solar cell structures from weather (paragraph [0051]).
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 solar cells of Pinarbisi between glass front covers and back sheets with gaps between cells filled with encapsulant, based on the disclosure of Nguyen.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 11, wherein the module comprises an encapsulant that encapsulates the plurality of solar cells.
In reference to Claim 12, modified Pinarbisi does not teach that the polymer necessarily comprises a thermoset material.
However, he teaches that the polymer may suitably comprise a thermoset material (paragraph [0032]).
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 formed the dielectric polymer protection coating of modified Pinarbisi from a thermoset material, because he teaches that the dielectric polymer protection coating may suitably comprise a thermoset material (paragraph [0032]).
In reference to Claim 13, Pinarbisi teaches a solar module (Fig. 4, paragraphs [0033]-[0036]).
The module of Pinarbisi comprises a plurality of solar cells 100A and 100B (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4 teaches that each solar cell comprises a dielectric polymer protection coating 140 on a surface of the solar cell (paragraph [0032]).
Pinarbisi teaches that this polymer protection coating 140 is a polymer (paragraph [032]).
Fig. 4 of Pinarbisi 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.
Pinarbisi does not teach that the module of his invention comprises an encapsulant that encapsulates the plurality of solar cells.
To solve the same problem of providing a shingled solar module, Nguyen teaches that encapsulating shingled solar cells between glass front covers and back sheets with gaps between cells filled with encapsulant provides the benefit of protecting the solar cell structures from weather (paragraph [0051]).
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 solar cells of Pinarbisi between glass front covers and back sheets with gaps between cells filled with encapsulant, based on the disclosure of Nguyen.
This modification 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, and a transparent layer disposed towards front sides of the plurality of solar cells.
Fig. 4 of Pinarbisi teaches that the dielectric polymer protection coating 140 has a pattern (i.e. a hollow rectangular pattern) through which contact structures (i.e. contact regions 120A and conductive adhesive regions 124) of the plurality of solar cells protrude (paragraph [0034]).
In reference to Claim 14, modified Pinarbisi does not teach that the polymer necessarily comprises a thermoset material.
However, he teaches that the polymer may suitably comprise a thermoset material (paragraph [0032]).
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 formed the dielectric polymer protection coating of modified Pinarbisi from a thermoset material, because he teaches that the dielectric polymer protection coating may suitably comprise a thermoset material (paragraph [0032]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The arguments directed toward the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are not fully persuasive. The amendments overcome some of the prior rejections, but the amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), presented herein.
The arguments directed toward the prior art rejections are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
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 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
Prosecution Insights