DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is the first action on the merits for application 18/826,239 filed September 6, 2024.
This application claims priority to Italian document IT102023000018486, filed September 8, 2023.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species I in the reply filed on November 26, 2025 is acknowledged.
While the term, “without traverse” is present in the response regarding the claim selection, if the Applicant intended the restriction to be with traverse, please find the following arguments in response.
Starting on page 1 of the response, the Applicant states claim 12 should be considered within the group of claims 1-11, as it recites “The photovoltaic module according to claim 11…”. This is not what claim 12 of record states. Claim 12 in the claim set seen by the Examiner, reflected in the PG PUB and the basis for the restriction begins “A manufacturing process of a photovoltaic module…” where no dependency is recited. It is unclear if the claim set filed is not that considered by the Applicant or any other situation, but this reason is not persuasive reason to include claim 12 within the product claim set. The remainder of the response is directed to the premise that claim 12 is a product-by-process claim and should be considered with the product claims, which is moot based on the previous argument. The restriction as written provides clear burden to examining both group I and group II, giving reason to maintain both the groups and reasons for insisting upon restriction. For at least these reasons, group I will remain claims 1-11. The Examiner in encourages the Applicant to amend claim 12 consistent with any future amendments to claim 1 over the course of prosecution to ensure rejoinder if the group elected were to become allowable.
The Applicant recites Species I and II are the same since they both use FDM, on page 3 of the response. The Examiner disagrees with this assertion. While the Examiner sees both structures can use of the same FDM process for manufacture, this isn’t applicable to the species restriction as the election is based on each Species having their own two distinct structures.
Moreover, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that all claims read on Species I (also from page 3 of the response). More specifically, claim 9 refers to component 17 (as in figures 4a/4b), consistent with Species I but claim 10 specifically refers to the components of figures 7a/b, without a component 17, are clearly stated to be Species II. For this reason, consistent with the election, claim 10 of group I is withdrawn to the non-elected species.
For at least these reasons, claims 1-9 and 11 are to be examined based on the election of Group I and Species I.
The Examiner called the Attorney of the response on December 10th and 12th but was not able to discuss this filing (and the incorrect language they attributed to claim 12) and no messages were returned.
Claims 10, and 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 26, 2025.
Claims 1-9 and 11 are considered on the merits herein.
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 5 and 6 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 5 is unclear as it requires conductive particles supported by a metal matrix. Claim 5 requires a support matrix to be a metallic matrix, in conjunction with the conductive particles of claim 1. Per the specification, the conductive particles are to include metal particles (pages 24-25 of the specification as filed) but it is unclear how the metal particles are present within the metallic matrix when both can utilize the same materials. It is unclear if the layer is simply a single metal layer or if the intent is a different structure of particles within a metallic framework. While extensive disclosure is provided regarding a thermoplastic polymer matrix, the specification provides no clarity regarding a metallic matrix outside of a single recitation on page 34 of the specification which does not seem to address the addition of conductive particles to the metallic matrix. For this reason, it is unclear how the metallic matrix will support metal particles of overlapping material or if the matrix is to comprise metallic particles. The Applicant is encouraged to describe structure within the context of the specification or limit the claims to use of the thermoplastic polymer matrix.
Claim 6 is further rejected as being dependent on above rejected claim 5.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SUZUKI (EP 2749620A1).
Regarding claim 1, SUZUKI teaches a photovoltaic module (figure 2) comprising at least a string (connection of photovoltaic modules 2, shown in figure 3, or in figure 2) comprising at least a first and a second photovoltaic cell (leftmost 2 and center 2 of figure 3 or a selection of adjacent cells 2 from figure 2) and a connector (3, “tab wires” and 20, “conductive adhesive film”) that electrically couples the first and the second photovoltaic cell (see connections of figure 3), each of the first and second photovoltaic cell comprising:
- a respective photovoltaic conversion region (10, “photoelectric conversion element”) delimited by a respective main front surface (top side of component 10) and a respective main rear surface (bottom side of component 10) opposite to each other; and
- a respective first electrode structure (11, “bus bar electrode”, 12, “finger electrode”) and a respective second electrode structure (13, “back-surface electrode”), which are formed of conductive material (paragraphs [0038] and [0039], indicating the first electrodes are made of gold paste, paragraph [0040], indicating the second electrode is made of aluminum) and extend respectively on the main front surface (paragraphs [0038] and [0039]) and on the main rear surface (paragraph [0040]);
characterized in that the connector (3/20) is formed of a composite material comprising a support matrix (acrylic resin, paragraph [0013] in component 20) and electrically conductive particles (“conductive particles, paragraph [0017] in component 20), which are dispersed in the support matrix (see figure 1, layer 20); and
wherein the connector (3/20) comprises a respective first end portion (top portion over the left most cell of figure 3) and a respective second end portion (bottom portion under the center cell of figure 3), which respectively contact the second electrode structure of the first photovoltaic cell and the first electrode structure of the second photovoltaic cell (see figure 3).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, SUZUKI teaches the use of acrylic resins and thermoplastic elastomers (paragraph [0013] including at least polystyrene (paragraph [0070]), polymethylmethacrylate (paragraph [0014]), or nitrile rubber (paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 7, SUZUKI teaches the electrically conductive particles are formed of at least one conductive material chosen from: copper in paragraph [0017].
Regarding claim 8, SUZUKI teaches the photovoltaic module further comprising an encapsulant region (“sealing adhesive region”, paragraphs [0033] and [0034]), inside which the first and second photovoltaic cell (see figure 2, cells 2) are arranged, coplanar with each other (see figure 2); and
wherein the connector (3/20) further comprises a coupling portion (diagonal portion of 20 which extends between the cells 2, as shown in figure 3) that connects the first and the second end portion (end portions being that of 3/20 over or under the cells) and that extends into a portion of the encapsulant region interposed between the first and the second photovoltaic cell (upon lamination, as taught in paragraphs [0033] and [0034], the resin of the sealing adhesive agent will encapsulate the exposed diagonal portion of the connector between the cells).
Regarding claim 11, SUZUKI teaches the first and the second photovoltaic cell are heterojunction photovoltaic cells (stack of amorphous and crystalline silicon of paragraph [0032] is consistent with a HTJ).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SUZUKI (EP 2749620A1). PMMA (“Material Properties of Polystyrene and Poly(Methyl ...” Bangs Laboratories, Inc., 28 Apr. 2015, bangslabs.com/wp-content/uploads/BLI.TSD-0021-Material-Properties-Web.pdf. ) is cited as evidence herein.
Regarding claim 2, SUZUKI teaches the use of polymethylmethacrylate (equivalent to the support matrix) in paragraph [0014]. PMMA teaches a melting temperature (interpreted to be equivalent to a fusion temperature as melting provides fusion) of polymethylmethacrylate to be 130°C. This reads on the support matrix has a fusion temperature lower than 220° C.
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) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI, in view of BAUMLI (Baumli, Peter. “SOLDER MATERIALS WITH MICRO AND NANOPARTICLES: A REVIEW .” Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 40, no. 1, 2015, pp. 42–49.). PMMA is cited as evidence herein for claim 2 from which claims 5 and 6 depend.
Regarding claim 5, SUZUKI teaches the use of solder plating on the connector (3/21) in paragraphs [0037] and [0063], reading on a support matrix, with a melt or fusion temperature of 160°C (as required by claim 2), but SUZUKI et al fails to detail the metallic matrix material to have conductive particles therein.
BAUMLI teaches a low temperature solder material (Sn-Pb alloys with melting temps between 183 and 218 on page 45) in electronics (PCBs, same citation), just as in SUZUKI. BAUMLI teaches the use of a metal matrix with conductive particles therein (Section 3.2 on page 45), which teaches the addition of metal nanoparticles such as Co, Ag or Mo cause greater hardness, shear strength and resistance to creep.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to utilize conductive particles, as in BAUMLI, within the metallic matrix of SUZUKI to increase hardness, shear strength and resistance to creep. The addition of metal particles via BAUMLI, to the solder of SUZUKI, renders an interpretation wherein the solder functions as the metallic matrix.
Regarding claim 6, the use of the tin and lead alloy solder, as in BAUMLI, would have been an effective substitute for the generic solder of SUZUKI as it would render a similar melting point within the electronics, still effective and predictably rendering conductive attachment.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SUZUKI, in view of HISHIDA et al (US PG PUB 20080121265).
Regarding claim 9, SUZUKI teaches each first electrode structure (11/12) comprises bus bar electrodes and finger electrodes orthogonal to each other (paragraphs [0035] and [0036]) but does not elaborate on their structure consistent with the claim scope.
HISHIDA et al teaches a solar module comprising a first (11a/11b/21a/21b) and second electrode structure (rear side, paragraph [0028]) utilizing a connector (2/13, connector interpreted to include the adhesive 13) to connect adjacent cells within a string (as shown in figures 1, 2a and 2b), just as in SUZUKI. HISHIDA et al further teaches the first electrode structure (top side of 10a or 10b shown in figure 2B) comprising
-at least a respective first and a respective second front group of first front electrodes (21a/21b, wherein the groups of finger electrodes of HISHIDA et al are randomly selected (such as group 1 being the finger electrodes on an edge of module 10b and group 2 being finger electrodes of between component 11b)) having elongated shapes parallel to a first direction (wherein extension toward the top of the page is interpreted as the Y axis and first direction) and arranged on the main front surface (10a/10b), the first front electrodes of each of the first and second front group being offset parallel to a second direction (second direction being across the page horizontally, offset shown in figure 2B), the first and the second front group being offset parallel to the first direction (the finger electrodes of each section are separated from each other in the vertical direction of figure 2b, moreover, the finger electrode structure looks identical in HISHIDA et al to that of the instant application);
- at least a respective pair of second front electrodes (11a/11b) having elongated shapes parallel to the second direction (extending across the page, second direction) and arranged on the main front surface (10a/10b), the pair of second front electrodes (11a/11b) being interposed between the first and the second front group (shown in figure 2B to separate the two groups detailed above) of first front electrodes (21a/21b), so that each second front electrode (11a/11b) contacts a corresponding group of said first and second front group of first front electrodes (21a/21b, see figure 2B), the pair of second front electrodes (11a/11b) laterally delimiting a corresponding front cavity (23), which is further delimited by a corresponding exposed portion of the main front surface (10a)(see figure 3);
and wherein each second electrode structure (wherein paragraph [0028] teaches the front and back to have the same structure. The citations below are made to the front surface components, but understood based on the above citation, to be reflective of the components on the rear side) comprises:
- at least one respective first and one respective second rear group of first rear electrodes (21a/21b, wherein the groups of finger electrodes of HISHIDA et al are randomly selected (such as group 1 being the finger electrodes on an edge of module 10b and group 2 being finger electrodes of between component 11b)) having elongated shapes parallel to the first direction (wherein extension toward the top of the page is interpreted as the Y axis and first direction) and arranged on the main rear surface (10a/10b, but on the rear side), the first rear electrodes (21a/21b) of each of the first and the second rear group being offset parallel to the second direction (second direction being across the page horizontally, offset shown in figure 2B), the first and the second rear group being offset parallel to the first direction (the finger electrodes of each section are separated from each other in the vertical direction of figure 2b, moreover, the finger electrode structure looks identical in HISHIDA et al to that of the instant application);
- at least one respective pair of second rear electrodes (11a/11b) having elongated shapes parallel to the second direction (extending across the page, second direction) and arranged on the main rear surface (10a/10b, per paragraph [0028]), the pair of second front electrodes (11a/11b) being interposed between the first and the second rear group of first rear electrodes (21a/21b), so that each second rear electrode (11a/11b) contacts a corresponding group of said first and second rear group of first rear electrodes (21a/21b, see figure 2B), the pair of second rear electrodes (11a/11b) laterally delimiting a corresponding rear cavity (23), which is further delimited by a corresponding exposed portion of the main rear surface (10a/10b);
wherein the first end portion of the connector (portion of 2/13 under the second cell in figure 1) extends into the rear cavity (23) of the first photovoltaic cell (1b per figure 1, see figure 3 for extension into the cavity), in contact with the corresponding second rear electrodes (11b) and with the corresponding exposed portion of the main rear surface (10a of figure 3) of the first photovoltaic cell (1b of figure 1) (per figures 2b/3) (to be clear, the figures show the arrangement per the front side, but discuss the presence of this structure on the rear as well in paragraph [0028]);
and wherein the second end portion of the connector (portion of 2/13 over the left cell of figure 1) extends into the front cavity (23) of the second photovoltaic cell (1a per figure 1, see figure 3 for extension into cavity), in contact with the corresponding second front electrodes (11a) and with the corresponding exposed portion of the main front surface (10a) of the second photovoltaic cell (1a of figure 1). Paragraph [0059] teaches the use of the openings within the bus bar electrodes to allow direction connection between the connector (2/13) and semiconductor substrate (10) to increase adhesive strength and increase surfaces for the connector to adhere to the substrate (increasing adhesion). Moreover, paragraph [0028] details the use of a full back face electrode or the finger/busbar layout are reasonable arrangements for the rear electrode.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the finger/busbar back contact arrangement of HISHIDA et al for that of the field electrode of SUZUKI or HISHIDA et al, because the use of either will render the same predictable result of electrical collection. Moreover, the substitution of the specific finger electrode and bus bar combination with openings of HISHIDA et al for the finger electrode/busbar combination of SUZUKI et al would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it allows for increased adhesion between the connectors and substrates.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG PUB 20140190548 to KASE also teaches an opening in the busbar filled with resin, relevant to the embodiment of claim 9 and Species I.
CN103563011A details other conductive particles present within a resin, consistent with the conductive particles of the claims, and directed to the state of the art.
CN116314412A details the use of conductive adhesive within openings of the electrodes, directed to the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST M-F.
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.
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 12/12/2025