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
This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 04/03/2026.
Claim(s) 1-22 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 1-14 have been withdrawn.
Claim(s) 15, 18, 20 and 22 have been amended.
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) 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2013214717A, Park et al. (hereinafter “Park”) in view of US 2017/0033242 A1, Nam et al. (hereinafter “Nam”).
Regarding claim 15
Park teaches a solar cell (1) [Fig. 3 and para. 0035], comprising:
a solar cell body (corresponding to semiconductor substrate 111) [Figs. 3 and 7, para. 0035]; and
a first conductive pattern (corresponding to first and second electrodes 14 and 16) and a second conductive pattern (corresponding to first and second conductors 140 and 160) sequentially laminated on the solar cell body (111) [Figs. 2-3 and 7, paras. 0041 and 0047], wherein the first conductive pattern (14 and 16) and the second conductive pattern (140 and 160) are electrically connected through:
a conductive adhesive pattern (corresponding to patterns of first and second adhesive members 40 and 41, the conductive adhesives made of a conductive material) between the first conductive pattern (14 and 16) and the second conductive pattern (140 and 160) [Figs. 2, 5 and 7, paras. 0047 and 0050].
PNG
media_image1.png
278
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
296
447
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 Fig. 7
Park does not disclose the second conductive pattern and the first conductive pattern being electrically connected through one of:
Welding; eutectic bonding; or a third conductive pattern between the first conductive pattern and the second conductive pattern, wherein the third conductive pattern comprises a first part close to the first conductive pattern, a second part close to the second conductive pattern, and a middle part between the first part and the second part, wherein a grain size of the third conductive pattern increases from the first part to the middle part and increases from the second part to the middle part.
Nam discloses a solar cell wherein a second conductive pattern (corresponding to ribbon 142) and a first conductive pattern (corresponding to electrode layer 424) are eutectically bonded (the electrode layer 424 and the ribbon 142 are joined via a solder paste which meets with the limitation “eutectically bonded”) [paras. 0080-0081 and 0100].
Park and Nam are analogous inventions in the field of solar cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have joined/bonded the first and second conductive patterns of modified Park via an eutectic solder, as disclosed in Nam, as such is a suitable attachment means for bonding conductive patterns in solar cells.
Regarding claim 16
Park does not disclose a bonding pattern arranged between the first conductive pattern and the solar cell body.
Nam discloses a solar cell wherein a bonding pattern (corresponding to adhesive layer 422) is formed between a first conductive pattern (corresponding to electrode layer 424) and the solar cell body (see semiconductor substrate 10) in order to improve the adhesion between the solar cell body and said first conductive pattern [Figs. 2-3, paras. 0068, 0121, 0131 and 0135-0136].
Park and Nam are analogous inventions in the field of solar cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the solar cell of modified Park such that a bonding pattern is arranged between the first conductive pattern and the solar cell body, as discloses in Nam, for the purpose of improving the adhesion between the solar cell body and said first conductive pattern [Nam, paras. 0131 and 0136].
Regarding claim 17
Modified Park teaches the solar cell as set forth above, wherein the second conductive pattern and the first conductive pattern are eutectically bonded or welded together [Nam, paras. 0080-0081 and 0100].
With regards to the limitation “wherein the solar cell further comprises a diffusion control pattern between the first conductive pattern and the second conductive pattern, wherein the diffusion control pattern is used for controlling a thickness of an alloy formed in the welding or the eutectic bonding of the second conductive pattern and the first conductive pattern”, Nam discloses a solar cell comprising a diffusion control pattern (corresponding to barrier layer 428) between a first conductive pattern (424) and a second conductive pattern (142) [Fig. 5(a)-5(c), paras. 0068, 0082-0083 and 0096], wherein the diffusion control pattern (428) is used for controlling a thickness of an alloy formed in the welding or the eutectic bonding of the second conductive pattern and the first conductive pattern (barrier layer 428 serves to prevent diffusion of the constituent material of the electrode layer even if the temperature is increased, whereby a hydrophilic oxide layer that may be formed is prevented) [paras. 0075, 0083, 0096 and 0130-0131].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the solar cell of Park to comprise a diffusion control pattern between the first and second conductive patterns, as in Nam, in order to form conductive patterns with low resistance and excellent attachment properties.
Although disclosed in the art, the limitation “for controlling a thickness of an alloy formed in the welding or the eutectic bonding of the second conductive pattern and the first conductive pattern” is considered a functional limitation and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function.
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 19
Modified Park teaches the solar cell as set forth above, wherein a length (see thickness of first and second conductors 140a and 160a in Fig. 7 of Park above) of the second conductive pattern (140 or 160) is greater than a length of the first conductive pattern (14 or 16) along an extension direction of the second conductive pattern [Park, Fig. 7 and para. 0062], or wherein a width (See W5 and W6 in Fig. 7 of Park, above) of the second conductive pattern (140 or 160) is greater than a width (See W7 and W8) of the first conductive pattern (14 or 16) along a width direction of the second conductive pattern (140 or 160) [Park, Fig. 7 and para. 0062-0063].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Nam, as applied to claims 15-17 and 19 above, and further in view of US 2009/0032081 A1, Saita et al. (hereinafter “Saita”).
Regarding claim 18
Modified Park does not teach a plurality of curing adhesive patterns on a side of the first conductive pattern and the second conductive pattern away from the solar cell body.
Saita teaches a solar cell (10) comprising a plurality of curing adhesive patterns (12) on a side of a first conductive pattern (40) and a second conductive pattern (11) away from the solar cell body (20) in order to improve the adhesiveness of the second conductive pattern (11) and to the first conductive pattern (40) as well as the collecting efficiency of the solar cell (10) [Fig .5 and paras. 0036-0037 and 0077-0081].
Modified Park and Saita are analogous inventions in the field of solar cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solar cell of modified Park to comprise curing adhesive patterns, as disclosed in Saita, for the purpose of improved carrier collection and adhesiveness between the conductive patterns.
The limitation “configured to prefix the second conductive pattern to the first conductive pattern” is considered intended use and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. Since modified Park discloses that the curing adhesive patterns (12) improve adhesiveness of the second conductive pattern and to the first conductive pattern [see Saita, Fig .5 and paras. 0036-0037 and 0077-0081], the same is considered capable of performing the intended use.
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Nam and US 2019/0214517 A1, Maekawa et al. (hereinafter “Maekawa”).
Regarding claim 20
Park teaches a solar cell module (200), comprising a first encapsulation adhesive film (corresponding to sealant 30), a solar cell string (see electrically interconnected solar cells 1) that are sequentially laminated [Figs. 1-2, paras. 0032 and 0057-0058], wherein the solar cell string comprises a plurality of solar cells (1) sequentially connected in series [paras. 0057-0058], wherein a solar cell (1) of the plurality of solar cells comprises:
a solar cell body (corresponding to semiconductor substrate 111) [Figs. 3 and 7, para. 0035]; and
a first conductive pattern (corresponding to any one of first and second electrodes 14 or 16) and a second conductive pattern (corresponding to any one of first and second conductors 140 or 160) sequentially laminated on the solar cell body (111) [Figs. 2-3 and 7, paras. 0041 and 0047], wherein the first conductive pattern (14 or 16) and the second conductive pattern (140 or 160) are electrically connected through:
a conductive adhesive pattern (corresponding to patterns of first and second adhesive members 40 and 41, the conductive adhesives made of a conductive material) between the first conductive pattern (14 or 16) and the second conductive pattern (140 or 160) [Figs. 2, 5 and 7, paras. 0047 and 0050].
PNG
media_image3.png
344
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2
Park does not disclose the second conductive pattern and the first conductive pattern being electrically connected through one of:
welding; eutectic bonding; or a third conductive pattern between the first conductive pattern and the second conductive pattern, wherein the third conductive pattern comprises a first part close to the first conductive pattern, a second part close to the second conductive pattern, and a middle part between the first part and the second part, wherein a grain size of the third conductive pattern increases from the first part to the middle part and increases from the second part to the middle part.
Nam discloses a solar cell wherein a second conductive pattern (corresponding to ribbon 142) and a first conductive pattern (corresponding to electrode layer 424) are eutectically bonded or welded together (the electrode layer 424 and the ribbon 142 are joined via a solder paste which meets with the limitation “eutectically bonded”) [paras. 0080-0081 and 0100].
Park and Nam are analogous inventions in the field of solar cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have joined/bonded the first and second conductive patterns of modified Park via an eutectic solder, as disclosed in Nam, as such is a suitable attachment means for bonding conductive patterns in solar cells.
Modified Park does not disclose a second encapsulation adhesive film.
Maekawa teaches a solar cell module wherein a solar cell string (10S) is positioned between a first encapsulation adhesive film (61) and a second a encapsulation adhesive film (62) such that both the front and back surfaces of the cells are sealed [Fig. 3, paras. 0071, 0033 and 0084-0087].
Modified Park and Maekawa are analogous inventions in the filed of solar cell modules comprising strings of serially connected cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the solar cell module of modified Park to comprise a second encapsulation adhesive film, as discloses in Maekawa, in order to seal both sides of the solar cells.
Although discloses in the art, the limitation “sequentially laminated” is considered product-by-process limitation.
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 claim 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].
Regarding claim 22
Modified Park teaches the solar cell module as set forth above, wherein the solar cell (1) comprises a collector gate line (see lines formed by first and second electrodes 14 and 16) for collecting carriers [Fig. 7, paras. 0002 and 0041], wherein the collector gate line comprises a first conductive pattern (14 and 16) and a second conductive pattern (140 and 160), or the collector gate line comprises a second conductive pattern (140 and 160), and wherein an extension direction of the collector gate line is parallel to a direction in which the plurality of solar cells (1) in the solar cell string are sequentially connected in series [Figs. 6A-6B and 7, paras. 0057-0058].
The limitation “sequentially laminated” is considered product-by-process limitation. 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 claim 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].
Further, the limitation “for collecting carriers” is considered a functional limitation and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the claimed function. It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Nam and Maekawa, as applied to claims 20 and 22 above, and further in view of US 2019/0296171 A1, Chang et al.
Regarding claim 21
Modified Park teaches the solar cell module (200) as set forth above, wherein the second conductive patterns of the two adjacent solar cells are electrically connected through a conductive structure (corresponding to structure formed by contact between the second conductive patterns, 140/160, of adjacent solar cells) [Park, Figs. 6A-6B, paras. 0058-0059].
Modified Park does not disclose two adjacent solar cells in the solar cell string overlapping each other.
Chang teaches a solar cell wherein adjacent solar cells in a solar cell string overlap each other in order to increase the output [para. 0004].
Modified Park Chang Maekawa are analogous inventions in the filed of solar cell modules comprising strings of serially connected cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify at least two adjacent solar cells of modified Park such that they overlap each other, as in Chang, for the purpose of increasing output.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 04/03/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 18 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 18 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 04/03/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 15-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. It is noted that previously applied reference Nam has been incorporated into the rejection of claims 15, 19, 20 and 22 (see Pages 8-10 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 01/21/2026. Examiner notes that Applicant has not addressed Nam in the Remarks received on 04/03/2026.
Nam discloses a solar cell comprising a second conductive pattern (corresponding to ribbon 142) and a first conductive pattern (corresponding to electrode layer 424) that are eutectically bonded or welded together (the electrode layer 424 and the ribbon 142 are joined via a solder paste which meets with the limitation "eutectically bonded") [paras. 0080-0081 and 0100].
It is noted that the instant claims recite the methods of joining in the alternative. Accordingly, a teaching of any one of the recited methods reads on the limitations of the claims. It is further noted that, other than the method involving a third conducting pattern present between the first conductive pattern and the second conductive pattern, the limitations directed to welding and/or eutectically bonding are considered-product-by-process limitations and do not impart any additional structure to the claimed product. 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 claim 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].
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 MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - EST.
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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights