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 .
Status of claims
The amendment filed on 1/16/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9-20 are amended. Claims 7-8 are canceled. Currently, claims 1-2, 4-6 and 9-20 are pending in the application.
Previous prior art rejection is modified to address the above amendment.
Claims 1-2,4-6, and 9-20 are rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, 12, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray et al. (US 2010/0000602) as evidenced by Yamada et al. (US 6,034,323), in view of Wakerfield (US Patent 4,487,989), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2012/0138141) and Bersano et al. (US 2013/0240025).
Regarding claim 1, Gray discloses a solar cell module (figs. 1-3) comprising:
a plurality of solar cells (10, figs. 1A-B) each including a semiconductor substrate (12, fig. 1B, [0043] and [0069-0072]), first electrodes (see fingers 18, figs. 1B, 2B, or 18/18A in fig. 3) arranged on a front surface of the semiconductor substrate and parallel to each other (see figs. 1B, 2B, 3), and second electrodes (28 and 26) arranged on a back surface of the semiconductor substrate (see fig. 2A);
a plurality of wiring members (or tabs 22, figs. 1B, 2B, 3) configured to electrically connect the first electrodes of first solar cells of the plurality of solar cells to the second electrodes of second solar cells of the plurality of solar cells adjacent to the first solar cells (see figs. 1-3, [0040-0053];
a plurality of first pads (see bond pads 32, figs. 2B and 3) spaced apart from each other and arranged on the front surface of the semiconductor substrate (see figs. 2B and 3); and
a plurality of connection electrodes (18P shown in fig. 4A-B, 6-9 when the tabs 22 are removed, [0050-0063]) configured to electrically connect, in a longitudinal direction of the wiring members in each of the plurality of solar cells, the plurality of first pads to the first electrodes (see figs. 4A-B, 6-9, [0050-0063]);
wherein a number of the plurality of wiring members (22) is shown to be 7 in fig. 1A, 20 in fig. 1B, 19 in fig. 2B, and 15 in fig. 5A-B; and 7, 20, 19 and 15 are right within the claimed range of 6 to 30;
wherein the wiring members are soldered, along the longitudinal direction of the wiring members, to the first pads (see [0049], [0055], [0081], [0083]);
wherein each of the plurality of first pads (32) has a width greater than a diameter (or largest cross-sectional dimension/side) of a respective wiring member (22) of the plurality of wiring members and a length greater than a width of a respective first electrode (18), so that the respective wiring member (22) partially overlaps with each of the plurality of first pads (32, see figs. 2B and 3),
wherein each of the connection electrodes (18P) along a longitudinal direction of the plurality of first electrodes (18) has a width less than the width of each of the wiring members (22) along the longitudinal direction of the plurality of first electrodes (18), so that each of the wiring members (22) fully overlaps with a corresponding one of the connection electrodes (18P – or the fingers 18P are not shown when they are completely covered by the tabs 22, [0050]; also see figs. 4A-B when the tabs 22 removed/not shown and figs. 5A-B when the tabs 22 are shown).
Gray et al. discloses each connection electrode (18P) is for connecting the pads (32, see [0054]), and shows a pitch (or spacing) between two adjacent wiring members (or tabs 22) that cover two adjacent connection electrodes (18P) in the longitudinal direction of each first electrode (18) is greater than a pitch between two adjacent first electrodes (18) and less than 10 times the pitch between two adjacent electrodes (18, see figs. 1-4, also see figs. 6A, 6B, 7, 8A and 9).
Gray et al. teaches the wiring members (or tabs 22) is silver plated copper wires (see [0048]). Silver plated copper wire is a wiring member being formed by a copper (or a metal material) and a coating layer (or plated silver). It is noted that silver plated copper wire is a wiring member having a diameter (see col. 7, lines 10-12 of the evidentiary reference to Yamada et al.). In addition, Gray et al. also teaches the wiring members (or tabs 22) is soldered to the pads (32, see [0049], [0055], [0081], [0083]), wherein the pads forming the discontinuous bus bar (20) is formed of silver paste (see [0074], [0077], [0079]). As such, Gray et al. discloses the wiring member includes a core formed by a metal material (copper/silver) and a coating layer formed by a solder paste (or silver paste of the pads 32 forming the discontinuous bus bar 20) and coated on a surface (or attaching surface) of the core. Furthermore, a recitation of how to formed the coating layer by a paste, or a solder paste, is a process limitation that does not further define the structure of the solar cell. Even 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 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). MPEP 2113. Regardless how the coating layer is formed by a solder paste or by other metal coating, in the end the coating layer is still a metal (solder) coating layer in the final product of solar cell module and the paste state is no longer present.
Gray et al. teaches varying the patterns and numbers of the pads (32 forming the discontinuous bus bar 20) and the connection electrode (18P, see [0063]); and the pattern of first electrodes (18), connection electrodes (18P) and the discontinuous busbars (20 which is formed by the pads 32) is a matter of desired choice ([0074]). Gray et al. also teaches the plurality of first pads including a plurality of first auxiliary pads (or middle pads) and a plurality of first extension pads (or the end pads) arranged at intervals along a longitudinal direction of the plurality of wiring members (22, see figs. 2B, 4A, 6A, 9), and the pads (32) are designed to have different shape and dimension ([0066]).
Gray et al. does not teach a pattern that has a number of the first electrodes connected to one connection electrode of the plurality of connection electrodes is greater than a number of the first pads connected to the one connection electrode of the plurality of connection electrodes, and the second electrode are parallel to each other with a number of the second electrodes being more than a number of the first electrodes; nor do they teach the extension pads having larger dimensions than the auxiliary pads such that the third dimension (of the extension pad) is greater than the first dimension (of the auxiliary pad) and the second dimension (of the middle pad) is greater than the fourth dimension (of the extension pad).
Wakefield et al. discloses a pattern of the pads (or pad rows 22 and 24 in fig. 1) in which the pads are arranged every other two first electrodes (or horizontal contact lines, see figs. 1, 3 and 5) resulting in the number of first electrodes (or horizontal contact lines) connected to one connection electrode (or vertical contact lines connecting 2 pads), e.g. 4 first electrodes – 4 horizontal contact lines, is greater than a number of first pads (or 2 pads) connected to the one connection electrode (see figs. 1, 3 and 5). Wakefield et al. discloses the second electrodes (or thin lines of the rear electrical contact 20), that are associated with pads (or thick lines of the rear electrical contact 20), are parallel to each other with a number of the second electrodes (or the number of the thin lines of rear electrical contact 20) is more than a number of the first electrodes (or the number of the thin lines of the front electrical contact 16, see fig. 5). Wakefield et al. also teaches larger extension pads (or end pads) would be significantly advantage in addressing the misalignment of the wiring members (or the connector strips) such as minimizing loss of connection due to the misalignment (see col. 10, lines 51-59); and provides an example of the dimensional information (see table in col. 11) such that each of the auxiliary pads (or middle pad) has a first dimension in the longitudinal direction of the first electrodes (or the length) of 0.064 inch and a second dimension in the longitudinal direction of the plurality of wiring members (or full dimension of middle pads along direction of rectangle portion width) of 0.100 inch, and each of the extension pads (or end pad) has a third dimension in the longitudinal direction of the first electrodes (or the length of the extension/end pad or the full dimension of portion length) of 0.100 inch or 0.150 inch and a fourth dimension in the longitudinal direction of the plurality of wiring members (or a width of the extension/end pad) of 0.064 inch. As such, the third dimension (or the length or the full dimension portion length of the extension/end pad) of 0.100 inch or 0.150 inch is greater than the first dimension (or the length of the auxiliary/middle pad) of 0.064 inch, and the second dimension (or the full dimension of the portion width of the middle/auxiliary pad) of 0.100 inch is greater than the fourth dimension (or the width of the middle/auxiliary pad) of 0.064 inch.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pattern of the busbar (20, or rows of pads 32) of Gray et al. by arranging/spacing the pads (32) such that a number of the first electrodes connected to one connection electrode of the plurality of connection electrodes is greater than a number of the first pads connected to the one connection electrode of the plurality of connection electrodes, and by having the third dimension (of the extension pad) is greater than the first dimension (of the auxiliary pad) and the second dimension (of the middle pad) is greater than the fourth dimension (of the extension pad) as taught by Wakefield et al.; because Gray et al. explicitly suggests varying the patterns and numbers of the pads (32 forming the discontinuous bus bar 20) and the connection electrode (Gray et al.: [0063]), the pattern of first electrodes (18) and connection electrodes (18P) and the discontinuous busbars (20 which is formed by the pads 32) is a matter of desired choice (Gray et al.: [0074]), and the shape of the pads is also a matter of desired choice (Gray et al.: [0066]); Wakefield et al. teaches the pattern including such pads would balance a desire for transparent and radiation with a requirement for efficient charge collection along the cell (Wakefield et al.: abstract) and the dimensions would allow the extension pads to be larger to provide a significant advantage such as minimizing loss of connection due to the misalignment. Furthermore, such modification is a mere rearrangement of parts (or pads) to achieve a desired pattern that is suggested by Gray et al., and would not modify the operation of the solar cell module, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). It is also an obvious matter of design choice to select the dimensions as claimed. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior device. The skilled artisan would have been able to select an appropriate dimension based on the desired properties of the solar cell module.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rear electrical contact (or the bottom contact) of Gray et al. by forming a plurality of second electrodes associated with pads to be parallel to each other with a number of the second electrodes are more than a number of the first electrodes as taught by Wakefield et al.; because Gray et al. suggests the rear electrical contact (or the bottom contact) embodied by one or more small pads (see [0044] of Gray et al.),and Wakefield et al. teaches such rear electrical contact pattern would permit the passage of radiation through the cell which would otherwise decrease efficiency due to heat generation and to balance a desire for transparency to such radiation with a requirement for efficient charge collection along the rear of the cell (see abstract of Wakefield et al.).
Gray et al. teaches the pitch (P2) between two adjacent connection electrodes in a longitudinal direction of each first electrode is the same pitch between two adjacent wiring members or between two adjacent busbars (or columns of pads 32, see figs. 2B-10). Gray et al. shows using 7 equally spaced wiring members (or tabs 22) in fig. 1A; 20 equally spaced wiring members (or tabs 22) in fig. 1B; 19 equally spaced wiring members in fig. 2B; 15 equally spaced busbars (or columns of pads 32) in figs. 4A, 6A, 9, 10A; and 15 equally spaced wiring members in fig. 5A-B.
Gray et al. or modified Gray et al. does not explicitly teach the size of the solar cell such that the pitch (P2) between two adjacent connection electrodes ranges from 5mm to 23mm.
Kim et al. teaches using a solar cell having a wafer size of 156mm and the bus bar is positioned at a distance of about 2-3mm from the edges of the solar cell (see [0038]). It is noted that 156mm is the standard size of the solar cell known in the art (see [0047] of Bersano et al., US 2013/0240025).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make to have used the solar cell having a wafer size of 156mm and arranged the connection electrodes (or where the bus bars are) at a distance of about 2-3mm from the edges of the solar cell as taught by Kim et al., because such size is a standard size of the solar cell. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior device. The skilled artisan would have been able to select an appropriate thickness/size based on the desired properties of the solar cell module. As such, the pitch (P2) between the connection electrodes are found to be (156-4 or 156-6)mm/7, (156-4 or 156-6)mm/20, (156-4 or 156-6)mm/19, (156-4 or 156-6)mm/15 or 21.71mm, 21.43mm, 7.6mm, 7.5mm, 8mm, 7.89mm, 10.13mm, 10mm. 21.71mm, 21.43mm, 7.6mm, 7.5mm, 8mm, 7.89mm, 10.13mm, 10mm are right within the claimed range of 5mm to 23mm.
Regarding claim 2, modified Gray et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 1 above, wherein Gray et al. shows the back/rear side contact of back electrodes including a bottom bus bar (or bottom contact 28, e.g. having a bar shape) and a conductive material (26) covering the back side of the solar cell (see fig. 2A). Gray et al. further discloses the bottom bus bar (or bottom contact 28) being embodied by one or more small pads to provide electrical connection (see [0044]).
Gray et al. does not explicitly disclose the back/rear electrical contact of back electrodes (26/28) being a grid pattern including a plurality of second pads arranged on the back surface of the semiconductor substrate and spaced apart from each other along the longitudinal direction of the wiring members.
However, Wakefield discloses the back/rear electrical contact being a grid pattern including a plurality of second pads (88/90/92, figs. 2, 4 and 5) and a conductive material of plurality of strips (e.g. connector strips 94/96 and crossing strip 100/102, figs. 2, 4 and 5) covering the back side of the rear/back surface (see figs. 2, 4-5), wherein the plurality of pads (88/90/92) are arranged to be spaced apart from each other along the longitudinal direction of the row of pads (see figs. 1-5). Similarly, Glenn et al. discloses back/rear electrical contact being a grid pattern/structure (18) including a plurality of pads (18c and 18d, figs. 1-2) and a conductive material of plurality conductors (18a) covering the back surface (see figs. 1-2; col. 14-32 of Glenn et al.), wherein the pads (18c/18d) are arranged to be space apart from each other along the longitudinal direction of the row of pads (see figs. 1-2 of Glenn et al.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the back/rear side electrical contact of Gray et al. by using a plurality of pads and a conductive material of plurality of strips or conductors such that the pads are arranged along the longitudinal direction as taught by Wakefield et al. or Glenn et al., because Gray et al. explicitly suggest using pads and surface covering material for the back/rear side electrical contact (Gray et al.: [0044]), Wakefield et al. teaches such back/rear side electrical contact of grid pattern in combination with the front side grid pattern would achieve desired balance for transparent and radiation with requirement for efficient charge collection (Wakefield et al.: abstract), and Glenn et al. teaches such back/rear side electrical contact of grid pattern would support the solar cell (or crystal) during assembly and operation, restrict crack propagation, reducing the amount of heat generated (see col. 2, lines 32-62). In such modification, the plurality of crossing or transverse strip taught by Wakefield et al. or horizontal connectors (18a) of Glenn et al. corresponds to the claimed second electrodes.
Regarding claim 4, modified Gray et al. disclose a solar cell module as in claim 2 above, wherein Gray et al. discloses the first pads includes an auxiliary pad (a middle pad) and an extension pad (an end pad close to the edges a solar cell, see fig. 2B, also see figs.4A, 6A, 9 of Gray et al.). Gray et al. also discloses pads (32) having different shapes (see [0066] of Gray et al.). Wakefield et al. teaches each of the first and second pads includes an auxiliary pad (or a middle pad) and an extension pad (or end pad, see figs. 1-5 of Wakefield et al.). Wakefield et al. also teaches larger size of the extension pad (such as end pad 106) as compared to the auxiliary pad (such as middle pad 110) is considered a significant advantage in addressing the misalignment of the wiring members (or connector strips) which are to be soldered along the pad rows (see col. 10, lines 51-55).
Modified Gray et al. does not explicitly disclose the extension pad of each first and second pads having a different size (from the auxiliary pad of each of the first and second pads).
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second pads of modified Gray et al. by having the extension pad (or the end pad) having larger size compared to the auxiliary pad as taught by Wakefield et al. such that the auxiliary pad and the extension pad each has a different size; because Gray et al. suggests the pads having different shape, e.g. large shape or small shape, and Wakefield et al. teaches having larger size of the extension pad as compared to the auxiliary pad would provide a significant advantage in addressing the misalignment of the wiring members (or connector strips) which are to be soldered along the pad rows.
Regarding claim 5, modified Gray et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 4 above, wherein the extension pad has larger size (see claim 4 above), or a width or a length of the extension pad is greater than a width or a length of the auxiliary pad.
Regarding claim 6, modified Gray et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 4 above, wherein the extension pad (or the end pad such as 106 shown in fig. of Wakefield et al.) is arranged closer to an end portion of the semiconductor substrate than to the auxiliary pad along the longitudinal direction of the wiring members (or the row of the pads – or the discontinuous bus bar 20) in each of the plurality of solar cells.
Regarding claim 9, modified Gray et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 1 above, wherein the number of the first electrodes connected to one connection electrode is greater than the number of the first pads connected to the one connection electrode (see claim 1 above), or the number of the first pads is less than the number of the first electrodes. Gray et al. discloses the number of the first pads (32) is greater than 6 (see figs. 2B and 3; also see figs. 4A-B, 6-9, 10B-C and 13).
Regarding claim 10, modified Gray et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 2 above, wherein Wakefield et al. shows a number of the second pads is greater than 6 (see figs. 2 and 4-5).
Regarding claim 12, modified Gray et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 1 above, wherein Gray et al. shows a width of each of the connection electrodes (18P) is equal a width of the first electrode (18, see fig. 4A and B) and less than a width of the first pad (32, see figs. 2B, 3, and 5A-B – which is shown the tabs 22 cover completely the connection electrodes 18P shown in figs. 4A-B).
Regarding claim 15, modified Gray et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 1 above, wherein Gray et al. discloses the number of the wiring members (or tabs 22) corresponding to the number of the discontinuous busbars (20 – or a row of busbars 32) and the number of the wiring members (22) is ranging from 7 in fig. 1A to 15 in fig. 5A and 20 in fig. 2B. Gray et al. shows the number of discontinuous busbars (20) is 20 in fig. 1B.
Gray et al. does not explicitly show the number of wiring members being 12.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to have used twelve (12) wiring members to connected the solar cells, because Gray et al. shows the number of wiring members is ranging from 7 to 19-20. Such use is a matter of design choice to obtain the desired balance between efficiency, cell performance and material cost (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 16, modified Gray et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 4 above, wherein Gray et al. shows a width of the pads (32) is greater than the width of the wiring member (22, see figs. 2B and 3). Wakefield et al. exemplifies the extension pad (or end pad) having a width of 0.064 inch (see table in col. 11), 0.064 inch is 1.6mm which is less than 2.5mm.
Regarding claim 17, modified Gray et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 4 above; wherein Gray et al. discloses a length of the pads (32) is greater pad is greater than the width of the first electrode (18, see figs. 2B and 3), and Wakefield et al. exemplifies the length of the auxiliary pad (or the middle pad) is 0.064 inches (see table in col. 11). 0.64 inch is 1.6mm which is less than 30mm.
Regarding claim 20, modified Gray et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 3 above, wherein Wakefield et al. shows a gap between the first electrodes (or thinner lines of the front electrical contact 16, fig. 5) is larger than a gap between the second electrodes (or the thinner lines of the rear electrical contact 20, see fig. 5 of Wakefield et al.).
Alternatively, claim(s) 2, 4-6, 9-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Gray et al. (US 2010/0000602) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamaguchi et al. (US 2014/0251409).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, modified Gray et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 1 above, wherein Wakefield et al. discloses the rear electrical contact (20, figs. 2 and 4-5) being arranged on the back surface of the semiconductor substrate, and comprising a plurality of second pads spaced apart from each other along the longitudinal direction of the wiring members (or the direction along each row of the first pads of front electrical contact, see figs. 1-5) and second electrodes parallel to each other (see figs. 2 and 4-5). Wakefield et al. teaches the first pads including an auxiliary pad (or middle pad 110) and an extension pad (or end pad 106) having a different size (or larger size, see figs. 1, 3 and 5, table in col. 11), wherein the larger size end pad has significant advantage in addressing the misalignment of connector strips, which are to be soldered along the pad rows (see col. 10, lines 51-55).
Modified Gray et al., and more specifically Wakefield et al. does not teach the second electrodes (or rear electrical contact 20) having the extension pad with different size from the auxiliary pad.
Hamaguchi et al. discloses a surface electrode of island-like manner (figs. 9-1 and 9-2) comprising a plurality of electrodes (3, see figs. 9-1 and 9-2) for efficiently collect photogenerated carriers over the whole surface area ([0049]) connected a plurality of pads, which includes an auxiliary pad (or middle pad) and an extension pad (or end portion pad) having different size (see figs. 9-1 and 9-2). Hamaguichi et al. also discloses such surface electrode would reduce material and cost ([0119] and different size of the extension pad would suppress separation of the wiring members from the end portion due to the difference in thermal expansion ([0120]). Hamaguchi et al. shows using the surface electrode of island-like manner on light receiving surface (1a, or the front surface) in figs. 9-10 and on back/rear surface 1b in fig. 1 (also see [0065-0067]). In other words, Hamaguchi et al. discloses using island-like manner surface electrode such as shown on figs. 9-1 and 9-2 on both light receiving surface (or front surface 1a) and back/rear surface (1b) of the solar cell).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell module of modified Gray et al. by using island-like manner surface electrode (e.g. including discontinuous bus bar 20 formed of pads 32 and fingers 18 and 18P taught by Gray et al.) including an auxiliary pad and extension pad having different size for both first electrodes and second electrodes (or light receiving surface electrode and rear/back surface electrode) as taught by Hamaguchi et al.; because Hamaguchi et al. teaches such island-like manner surface electrode would reduce material and cost for efficiently collecting photogenerated carriers over the whole surface area ([0049] and [0119]), and having different sized extension pad would suppress separation of the wiring member and the end portion due to the difference in thermal expansion ([0120]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Gray et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 4 above, wherein Hamaguchi et al. discloses a length the extension pad (or the pad at end portion) is greater than a length of the auxiliary pad (see figs. 9-1 and 9-2).
Regarding claim 6, modified Gray et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 4 above, wherein Hamaguchi et al. shows the extension pad (or the pad at an end portion) is arranged closer to an end portion of the semiconductor substrate than to the auxiliary pad (or the middle pad) along the longitudinal direction of the wiring members (2) in each of the plurality of solar cells (see figs. 9-1 and 9-2 and 1-2).
Regarding claims 9-10, modified Gray et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claims 1 and 2 above, wherein Hamaguchi shows the number of the (first and second) pads is greater than 6 and less than the number of the first electrodes (see figs. 9-1 and 9-2).
Regarding claim 20, modified Gray et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 3 above, wherein the same surface electrode is used for the front and back surface (see claim 3 above), therefore the gap between the first electrodes is equal to a gap between the second electrodes.
Claims 11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Gray et al. (US 2010/0000602) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Miyamoto et al. (US 2011/0297224).
Regarding claims 11 and 18-19, modified Gray et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 2 above, wherein Gray et al. discloses the pattern for busbars (20 forming by pads 32) is a matter of desired choice ([0074]).
Modified Gray et al. does not explicitly disclose the number of the first pads is greater than the number of the second pads such that a ratio of number of the second pads to the number of the first pads (m/n) satisfies 0.5<m/n<1; nor do they teach a gap between the second pads is larger than a gap between the first pads.
Miyamoto et al. discloses arranging the pads such that the number of the first pads (3) is 8, and the number of second pads (7) is 7 (see fig. 3) such that the ratio of the number of the second pads (7) to the number of the first pads (3) is 7/8, or 0.875 which is between 0.5 and 1 and satisfies 0.5<m/n<1. Miyamoto et al. also disclosing arranging the pads such that the gap between second pads (7) is greater than the gap between the first pads (3, see fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patterns of first and second pads by arranging the pads to have the number of the first pads being greater than the number of the second pads so that the ratio (m/n), or the number of the second pads (m) to the number of the first pads (n) satisfies 0.5<m/n<1, and the gap between the second pads is larger than the gap between the first pads as taught by Miyamoto et al.; because Gray et al. teaches the patterns of the bus bars (20), each is formed by pads (32), is a matter of desired choice, and Miyamoto et al. teaches such arrangement of the first pads and the second pads would decrease the occurrence of breakage of the cells, suppress local excessive deformation, and suppress cost increase (Miyamoto et al.: [0012-0013]).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Gray et al. (US 2010/0000602) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (US Patent 6,034,323).
Regarding claims 13-14, modified Gray et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 1 above, wherein Gray et al. teaches the wiring members (or tabs 22) are silver plated copper wires ([0048]).
Modified Gray et al. does not explicitly teach each of the wiring members, or silver plated copper wires, has a diameter in a range of 250 mm to 500 mm as recited in claim 13 or a cross-section of each of the wiring members has a circular shape as recited in claim 14.
Yamada et al. teaches a silver plated copper wire has a diameter of 400 mm (see col. 7, lines 11-12). 400 mm is right within the claimed range of 250 mm to 500 mm. A wire or a wiring member has a dimension of diameter is a wire/wiring member having a cross-section of a circular shape.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell module of modified Gray et al. by using a wiring member having a wire shape of a circular cross section having a diameter of 400 mm as taught by Yamada et al., because Gray et al. explicitly suggests using silver plated copper wires and Yamada et al. teaches each silver plated copper wire has a diameter of 400 mm. Such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues previous cited references do not teach the first dimension, second dimension, third dimension and fourth dimension as claimed. However, as explained above, Wakefield et al. also teaches larger extension pads (or end pads) would be significantly advantage in addressing the misalignment of the wiring members (or the connector strips) such as minimizing loss of connection due to the misalignment (see col. 10, lines 51-59); and provides an example of the dimensional information (see table in col. 11) such that each of the auxiliary pads (or middle pad) has a first dimension in the longitudinal direction of the first electrodes (or the length) of 0.064 inch and a second dimension in the longitudinal direction of the plurality of wiring members (or full dimension of middle pads along direction of rectangle portion width) of 0.100 inch, and each of the extension pads (or end pad) has a third dimension in the longitudinal direction of the first electrodes (or the length of the extension/end pad or the full dimension of portion length) of 0.100 inch or 0.150 inch and a fourth dimension in the longitudinal direction of the plurality of wiring members (or a width of the extension/end pad) of 0.064 inch. As such, the third dimension (or the length or the full dimension portion length of the extension/end pad) of 0.100 inch or 0.150 inch is greater than the first dimension (or the length of the auxiliary/middle pad) of 0.064 inch, and the second dimension (or the full dimension of the portion width of the middle/auxiliary pad) of 0.100 inch is greater than the fourth dimension (or the width of the middle/auxiliary pad) of 0.064 inch.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pattern of the busbar (20, or rows of pads 32) of Gray et al. by having the third dimension (of the extension pad) is greater than the first dimension (of the auxiliary pad) and the second dimension (of the middle pad) is greater than the fourth dimension (of the extension pad) as taught by Wakefield et al.; because Gray et al. explicitly suggests varying the patterns and numbers of the pads (32 forming the discontinuous bus bar 20) and the connection electrode (Gray et al.: [0063]) and the shape of the pads (Gray et al.: [0066]), Wakefield et al. teaches the pattern including such pads would balance a desire for transparent and radiation with a requirement for efficient charge collection along the cell (Wakefield et al.: abstract) and the dimensions would allow the extension pads to be larger to provide a significant advantage such as minimizing loss of connection due to the misalignment. Furthermore, such modification would involve nothing more than a mere obvious matter of design choice to select the dimensions as claimed. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior device. The skilled artisan would have been able to select an appropriate dimension based on the desired properties of the solar cell module.
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 THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached on 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights