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 (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.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7 contains the limitation “wherein the first displacement amount is equal to the second displacement amount, or the first displacement amount is not equal to the second displacement amount”. It is unclear what is being required by the claim language. While the claim limitations separately provide a constraint on the method, together the limitations encompass any possible method. It is suggested that the limitations be split such that one claim requires “equal” and a separate claim requires “not equal”.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO 2021/258576 A1, see English equivalent US 2022/0406951 for mapping).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a method for manufacturing a photovoltaic module (abstract and [2]), comprising:
providing at least one cell string ([40]), wherein a respective cell string of the at least one cell string includes N cells arranged in sequence along a direction ([40], [77] and Figure 2, see cells 11, 12), and an end portion of each cell of the N cells overlaps with an end portion of an adjacent cell to form a corresponding overlapping welding region (30) ([40], [72], [75], [77] and Figure 2), N being greater than 1 ([40], [77] and Figure 2, see cells 11, 12);
for each overlapping welding region (30), forming a film insertion opening between stacked end portions of the two adjacent cells forming the each overlapping welding region (Figure 6 and [88]-[89], [96]-[99]);
providing at least one film strip (pad 61), and inserting a part of each film strip (pad 61) of the at least one film strip into a corresponding film insertion opening (Figures 6-7, [96] and [100]-[102]), with a remaining part of the each film strip (61) exposed outside the corresponding film insertion opening (As shown in Figures 2 and discussed in [80], the width of the pad is wider than the overlapping region of the cells such that there is a remaining part of the film strip that is outside of the film insertion opening);
and closing each film insertion opening (Figure 7 and [100] and [106]-[108]).
Chen does not explicitly disclose that a width of the part of the each film strip inserted into the corresponding film insertion opening is larger than a width of the remaining part of the each film strip; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to change the width of the part of the each film strip inserted into the corresponding film insertion opening and a width of the remaining part of the each film strip such that a width of the part of the each film strip inserted into the corresponding film insertion opening is larger than a width of the remaining part of the each film strip, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, modified Chen discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen additionally discloses that providing at least one cell string comprises: providing a plurality of cell strings sequentially arranged along a preset direction, and for each overlapping welding region of the respective cell string of the plurality of cell strings, forming the film insertion opening between the stacked end portions of the two adjacent cells forming the each overlapping welding region; and wherein providing the at least one film strip and inserting the part of each film strip into the corresponding film insertion opening comprise: providing a plurality of film strips, wherein each film strip extends along the preset direction; and inserting the plurality of film strips into different film insertion openings of the respective cell string respectively, and inserting each film strip of the plurality of film strips into the corresponding film insertion opening of the respective cell string of the plurality of cell strings, wherein each film strip of the plurality of film strips corresponds to one film insertion opening in the respective cell string (Figure 18 and [154], there are a plurality of cell strings each formed in the same manner).
Regarding claim 18, modified Chen discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen additionally discloses that an opening angle of the each film insertion opening is in a range of 5° to 45° (Figure 6, [96] and [99]), wherein the opening angle of the each film insertion opening refers to an angle between an end portion of one cell of the two adjacent cells and an end portion of another cell of the two adjacent cells for forming the each film insertion opening (Figure 6, see angle between conveying mechanisms 50 and 60 which forms opening angle between ends of cells).
Chen does not disclose the specifically claimed opening angle of the each film insertion opening of a range of 15° to 30°; however, 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 19, modified Chen discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen additionally discloses that the opening angle of the each film insertion opening is kept unchanged before closing the each film insertion opening (Figure 6, [96] and [100]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Chen discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen does not disclose that during inserting of the part of each film strip into the corresponding film insertion opening, a ratio of the width of the part of the each film strip inserted into the corresponding film insertion opening to the width of the remaining part of the each film strip is in a range of 1.5:1 to 5: 1. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to change the ratio of the width of the part of the each film strip inserted into the corresponding film insertion opening to the width of the remaining part of the each film strip, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,237,434. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,237,434 contain all of the limitations of instant claims 1-20 including the limitations “A method for manufacturing a photovoltaic module, comprising: providing at least one cell string, wherein a respective cell string of the at least one cell string includes N cells arranged in sequence along a direction, and an end portion of each cell of the N cells overlaps with an end portion of an adjacent cell to form a corresponding overlapping welding region, N being greater than 1; for each overlapping welding region, forming a film insertion opening between stacked end portions of the two adjacent cells forming the each overlapping welding region; providing at least one film strip, and inserting a part of each film strip of the at least one film strip into a corresponding film insertion opening, with a remaining part of the each film strip exposed outside the corresponding film insertion opening” (claim 1 of US 12,237,434) and “closing each film insertion opening” (claim 1 of US 12,237,434).
Claim 17 of US 12,237,434 discloses “wherein during inserting of the part of each film strip into the corresponding film insertion opening, a ratio of a width of the part of each film strip inserted into the corresponding film insertion opening to a width of the remaining part of each film strip exposed on a cell outside the corresponding film insertion opening is in a range of 1:5 to 5:1”. Claims 1-19 of US 12,237,434 do not explicitly disclose the limitation “a width of the part of the each film strip inserted into the corresponding film insertion opening is larger than a width of the remaining part of the each film strip”; however, 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-6 and 8-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejection as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and to overcome the double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 3, the closest prior art of Chen, alone or in combination, does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitation-after inserting each film strip into the corresponding film insertion opening of the respective cell string of the plurality of cell strings, moving each cell string relative to each film strip, such that the remaining part of each film strip is at least partially inserted into the corresponding film insertion opening- in combination with the other claim limitations.
Claims 4-15 additionally contain allowable subject matter as a result of their dependency on claim 3.
With respect to claim 16, the closest prior art of Chen, alone or in combination, does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitation -stretching two ends of each film strip in the preset direction in a direction away from each other- in combination with the other claim limitations.
Claim 17 additionally contains allowable subject matter as a result of the dependency on claim 16.
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