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 .
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 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutzer et al. (US 2011/0253191).
Regarding claim 1, Kutzer discloses a solar cell module in Figures 2-3 comprising:
a plurality of solar cells (202, [30]); and
a plurality of wiring members (contact wires 210) electrically connecting two adjacent solar cells (202) of the plurality of solar cells in serial and forming a plurality of solar cell strings ([38]-[40] and [56]); and
each solar cell of the plurality of solar cells comprises a first electrode (208) that is disposed on a first side of that solar cell, the first electrode comprises a plurality of finger electrodes (208) extend in one direction in parallel with one another ([34]-[25]).
Kutzer discloses that a number y of the plurality of wiring members is 12 (see 12 contact wires in Figure 2) and a discloses a width x in µm of each of the plurality of wiring members is less than 250 µm, 300 µm, 350 µm or 400 µm ([38]), which is an overlapping range that satisfies the claimed X1 and x2 requirements.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kutzer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kutzer additionally discloses that each of the plurality of solar cells comprises a semiconductor substrate (206), an emitter region forming a p-n junction along with the semiconductor substrate ([29]-[30]), the first electrode connected to the emitter region (front electrode) ([34]-[35]), and a second electrode connected to a back surface of the semiconductor substrate (back electrode) ([34]-[35], [56] and Figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kutzer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kutzer additionally discloses that the plurality of wiring members (contact wires 210) is electrically connected to the first electrode or the second electrode of each cell (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kutzer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kutzer additionally discloses that the plurality of wiring members connected to the first electrode (210 on front) and the plurality of wiring members connected to the second electrode (210 on back) are aligned with the semiconductor substrate (202) being interposed therebetween (Figure 3 and [56]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Kutzer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kutzer additionally discloses an upper substrate and a lower substrate opposite the upper substrate, wherein the plurality of solar cells is positioned between the upper substrate and the lower substrate ([81], solar cells are disposed between two glass substrates).
Claims 4-8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutzer et al. (US 2011/0253191), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Taira et al. (US 2012/0125396).
Regarding claims 4-6, modified Kutzer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kutzer does not disclose that the first electrode further comprises a plurality of contact pads disposed selectively at crossings of the plurality of finger electrodes and the plurality of wiring members, the width of each of the plurality of wiring members is less than a width of each of the plurality of contact pads such that each wiring member does not fully cover each of the plurality of contact pads, wherein the width of each of the plurality of contact pads is greater than a width of each of the plurality of finger electrodes and wherein the first electrode further comprises a plurality of connection electrodes, the plurality of connection electrodes is configured to interconnect the plurality of finger electrodes in a direction crossing the plurality of finger electrodes, and the width of each of the plurality of wiring members is greater than a width of each of the plurality of connection electrodes such that each wiring member covers each connection electrode.
Taira discloses a photovoltaic cell in Figures 1 and 30-31 comprising a plurality of wiring members (tabs 20) and a front electrode (11) which includes a plurality of front fingers (110) configured to extend in one direction in parallel with one another (Figures 26A and 28 and [122]-[123]), the plurality of fingers (110) crossing the plurality of wiring members (tabs 20) (finger and wiring members cross in section labeled b. As discussed in [66], the dashed lines indicate the position of the wiring members 20). Taira additionally discloses that each front electrode (11) comprises:
a plurality of contact pads (auxiliary electrodes 112) formed selectively at crossings of the plurality of front fingers (110) and the plurality of wiring members (Figures 26A and 28 and [122]-[123]), the width of each of the plurality of wiring members (tabs 20) is less than a width of each of the plurality of contact pads such that each wiring member does not fully cover each of the plurality of contact pads (Figures 26A and 28 and [122]-[123]), wherein the width of each of the plurality of contact pads (112) is greater than a width of each of the plurality of finger electrodes (110) (Figures 26A and 28) and wherein the first electrode further comprises a plurality of connection electrodes (bus bar electrodes 111) ([122]-[123]), the plurality of connection electrodes is configured to interconnect the plurality of finger electrodes (110) in a direction crossing the plurality of finger electrodes (Figures 26-27), and the width of each of the plurality of wiring members (20) is greater than a width of each of the plurality of connection electrodes (111) such that each wiring member covers each connection electrode (Figures 26-27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the first electrodes of Kutzer such that each front electrode comprises a plurality of contact pads disposed selectively at crossings of the plurality of finger electrodes and the plurality of wiring members, the width of each of the plurality of wiring members is less than a width of each of the plurality of contact pads such that each wiring member does not fully cover each of the plurality of contact pads, wherein the width of each of the plurality of contact pads is greater than a width of each of the plurality of finger electrodes and wherein the first electrode further comprises a plurality of connection electrodes, the plurality of connection electrodes is configured to interconnect the plurality of finger electrodes in a direction crossing the plurality of finger electrodes, and the width of each of the plurality of wiring members is greater than a width of each of the plurality of connection electrodes such that each wiring member covers each connection electrode, as taught by Taira, because the plurality of contact pads (auxiliary electrodes) allow for a degree of mechanical error in the application of the wiring members and relieve shear stresses during bonding of the wiring members which prevents cracking (Taira, [81] and [85]) and adding connection electrodes (bus bars) would amount to nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Kutzer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kutzer additionally discloses that the plurality of wiring members (tabs 20) are positioned on the plurality of connection electrodes (bus bar electrodes 111) (Taira, Figure 1 and 23-24, [104]) and wherein a width of each of the plurality of contact pads (auxiliary electrodes 112) is greater than a width of each of the plurality of connection electrodes (bus bar electrodes 111) (Taira, Figure 27).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kutzer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kutzer additionally discloses that the plurality of contact pads (119) is selectively disposed at crossings of the plurality of finger electrodes (110) and the plurality of connection electrodes (bus bar electrodes 111) (Taira, Figure 30a and [131]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kutzer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kutzer additionally discloses that a number of the plurality of contact pads (auxiliary electrodes 119) connected to any one of the plurality of wiring members (tabs 20) is smaller than a number of the plurality of finger electrodes (110) connected to the any one of the plurality of wiring members (20) (Taira, Figure 30a and [131]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutzer et al. (US 2011/0253191) in view of Taira et al. (US 2012/0125396), as applied to claim 6 above, in further view of Hashimoto et al. (US 2010/0243024).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kutzer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kutzer does not disclose that each connection electrode is entirely covered by the respective wiring member.
Hashimoto discloses a solar cell module in Figure 1 comprising a plurality of solar cells (4) comprising a first electrode (40) comprising a plurality of connection electrodes (140b) configured to interconnect a plurality of finger electrodes (40a) in a direction crossing the plurality of finger electrodes (40a) (Figure 8A, [50]-[51] and [87]-[97]), and wherein each of a plurality of wiring members (5) has a width (W) that is greater than a width of each of the plurality of connection electrodes (140b) such that each wiring member (5) entirely covers a respective connection electrode (140b) ([89]-[90]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the connection electrodes of the device of modified Kutzer such that each connection electrode is entirely covered by the respective wiring member, as taught by Hashimoto, because the electrode configuration taught by Hashimoto decreases the amount of electrode material used which deceases cost and results in a high conversion efficiency (Hashimoto, [97]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutzer et al. (US 2011/0253191), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Aschenbrenner et al. (US 2005/0268959)
Regarding claim 14, Kutzer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kutzer additionally discloses a connection terminal configured to connect two adjacent solar cell strings of the plurality of solar cells ([81]), but Kutzer does not explicitly disclose the connection terminal electrically connecting at least two parallel adjacent solar cell strings of the plurality of solar cells via ends of the plurality of wiring members that extend past an edge of a solar cell that is at the end of a respective solar cell string in the at least two parallel adjacent solar cell strings.
Aschenbrenner discloses a solar cell module in Figure 1 comprising at least two parallel adjacent solar cell strings comprising a plurality of solar cells and a connection terminal (120) electrically connecting the at least two parallel adjacent solar cell strings of the plurality of solar cells via ends of a plurality of connecting members that extend past an edge of a solar cell that is at the end of a respective solar cell string in the at least two parallel adjacent solar cell strings ([21]-[22]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Kutzer such that the connection terminal is electrically connecting at least two parallel adjacent solar cell strings of the plurality of solar cells via ends of the plurality of wiring members that extend past an edge of a solar cell that is at the end of a respective solar cell string in the at least two parallel adjacent solar cell strings, as taught by Aschenbrenner, because such a modification would amount to nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutzer et al. (US 2011/0253191) in view of Aschenbrenner et al. (US 2005/0268959), as applied to claim 14, in further view of Sachs (US 2007/0125415).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, modified Kutzer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kutzer does not disclose a cover member covering the connection terminal, wherein a surface of the cover member is an inclined surface falling toward solar cells of the at least two parallel adjacent solar cell strings that are adjacent to the connection terminal and the cover member, wherein the cover member and the connection terminal are spaced apart from the edge of the solar cell that is at the end of its respective solar cell string in the at least two parallel adjacent solar cell strings and wherein the inclined surface of the cover member includes uneven portions.
Aschenbrenner discloses a cover member (interconnect shield 220) configured to cover a connection terminal (210) in a solar cell module (Figures1, 2 and 7 and [23]-[27]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a cover member configured to cover the connection terminal in the device of modified Kutzer, such that the cover member and the connection terminal are spaced apart from the edge of the solar cell that is at the end of its respective solar cell string in the at least two parallel adjacent solar cell strings, as taught by Aschenbrenner, because the cover member makes the solar cell module more visually appealing and helps improve conversion efficiency by providing a light-scattering surface that directs light into adjacent solar cells where the light may be captured and converted to electricity (Aschenbrenner, [25]).
Aschenbrenner does not disclose that a surface of the cover member is an inclined surface falling toward solar cells of the at least two parallel adjacent solar cell strings that are adjacent to the connection terminal and the cover member, and wherein the inclined surface of the cover member includes uneven portions.
Sachs discloses a solar cell module in Figures 1 and 3 wherein a surface of an
interconnection member (114A) is an inclined surface including uneven portions (230,
232 a and b) ([27] and [32]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add uneven portions with an inclined surface to a surface of the cover member of modified Kutzer, such that the inclined surface is falling toward solar cells of the at least two parallel adjacent solar cell strings that are adjacent to the connection terminal and the cover member, as taught by Sachs, because the uneven and inclined surface allows incident light to be reflected up toward the front protective member such that the light undergoes total internal reflection and is reflected back onto the solar cells which improves the efficiency of the device (Sachs, [2] and [32]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Kutzer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kutzer additionally discloses an upper substrate, and a lower substrate opposite the upper substrate, wherein the plurality of solar cells is positioned between the upper substrate and the lower substrate; a transparent upper passivation layer positioned between the upper substrate and the plurality of solar cells; and a transparent lower passivation layer positioned between the plurality of solar cells and the lower substrate, wherein the cover member is positioned between the connection terminal and the transparent upper passivation layer (As discussed in [81] of Kutzer, the module is encapsulated in a transparent polymer between the upper and lower substrates which would be over the cover member of modified Kutzer).
Regarding claim 18, modified Kutzer discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kutzer additionally discloses that the cover member (interconnect shield 220) is formed of a same material as the lower substrate (back sheet 703) so that the cover member has a same color as the lower substrate (both the shield and lower substrate can be made of polyester and can be the same color, Aschenbrenner [27] and [33]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/ patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,522,092. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,522,092 contain all of the limitations of instant claims 1-18.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,164,130. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,164,130 contain all of the limitations of instant claims 1-18.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,170,646. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,170,646 contain all of the limitations of instant claims 1-18.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,201,252. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,201,252 contain all of the limitations of instant claims 1-18.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,199,200. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,199,200 contain all of the limitations of instant claims 1-18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the anticipation rejection over Kutzer have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the anticipation rejection over Kutzer has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, an obviousness rejection has been made over the Kutzer reference.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 with respect to the double patenting rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims in the refence patents do not contain the formulas for x1 and x2 in claim 1 and thus do not contain all of the limitations of claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. These claims in the reference patents contain values for the number of wiring members and widths of the wiring members that would satisfy the formulas x1 and x2 and thus contain all of the limitations of the instant claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY A BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/LINDSEY A BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728