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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 2/24/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The previous 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The previous art rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New analysis follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0243818 to Kim.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, and 7, Kim teaches a photovoltaic module (Fig. 19, ¶0091, 0092), comprising a plurality of solar cells C1, C2, C3 and a plurality of PV ribbons P1, P2 configured to connect the plurality of solar cells (Figs. 12, 27, ¶0124, 0125, 0247);
Wherein each solar cell C1, C2, C3 comprises a cell body 110 (¶0050-0052), a gridline C141, a solder pad (portion of CAP corresponding to A3 in Fig. 27; see Figs. 21, 22, ¶0250, 0251), an insulating layer IL/200 (Fig. 23, ¶0082, 0136), and a conductive adhesive (portion of CA/CAP corresponding to A1, A2 in Fig. 27), the gridline is provided on a surface of the cell body, the solder pad and the conductive adhesive are respectively provided on the gridline (best seen in Fig. 23) and are electrically connected to the gridline, the insulating layer covers the gridline (portion 200 covers all of gridline C141) and exposes the solder pad and the conductive adhesive (portion IL exposes C141 so that it contacts CAP), and the solder pad and the conductive adhesive are respectively connected to a PV ribbon P1;
Wherein each PV ribbon P1, P2 is provided on the solder pad and the conductive adhesive (portions of P1, P2 overlap regions A1, A2, A3), to allow the conductive adhesive to adhere to the PV ribbon and each PV ribbon is configured to be soldered to the solder pad (the portions of CAP corresponding to A3 are eventually heated to secure to the ribbons P1, P2).
The limitation that the adjacent cell bodies are pre-connected through the PV ribbon is a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). Regardless, the step STB, in which the adjacent cell bodies are connected, is performed after the adherence (Figs. 28-30, ¶0296).
Per claim 3, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1. A peripheral edge of the conductive adhesive (CA in Fig. 23) is surrounded by the insulating layer (CA is formed to overlap with gridline C141, which does not extend to the edges of the cell body 110; portion IL of the insulating layer extends to the edges of cell body 110, and therefore surrounds CA, and the portion of CA corresponding to A1, A2; MPEP §2125).
Per claim 4, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1. CA is formed to have a similar shape as gridline C141, as shown in Figs. 21-23. Gridline C141 has the form of a polygon, and the portion of CA corresponding to A1, A2 in Fig. 27 therefore has the form of a polygon (MPEP §2125).
Per claim 7, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1. As illustrated in Fig. 27, a plurality of conductive adhesives (portions of CA corresponding to A1, A2) located on the same gridling C141 are uniformly arranged (MPEP §2125).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2008/0216887 to Hacke.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1. In an interpretation, the gridline comprises all gridlines C141, such that the insulating layer IL/200 (specifically portion 200) covers all of gridline C141 (Figs. 23, 27). Kim does not teach that the gridline comprises a plurality of busbars and fingers. Hacke teaches that a gridline formed of a plurality of busbars (vertical conducting portions of Fig. 3A) each busbar connected to a plurality of fingers (horizontal conducting portions continuous with vertical portions) is a suitable alternative to a gridline which comprises only busbars (Fig. 2A), in order to distribute current and reduce losses (¶0032, 0039). Further, in such a gridline, the conductive adhesive is provided on the busbar (Fig. 3C, ¶0040). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the gridline to comprise a plurality of busbars and fingers, each busbar connected to a plurality of fingers, the insulating layer covering the busbar, and the solder pad and the conductive adhesives provided on the busbar, because such an arrangement distributes current and reduces losses.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1. CA, which forms the conductive adhesive in A1, A2 of Fig. 27, is formed to have a similar shape as gridline C141, as shown in Figs. 21-23. Kim teaches that the shape and area of gridlines are known result effective variables which would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize in order to balance manufacturing cost and resistance (¶0066, 0067). Further, the size of areas A1, A2 is optimized to reduce thermal expansion stress (¶0250-0265).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore the area of conductive adhesive is varied according to the area of the gridline and the desired reduction of thermal expansion stress, and the claimed range of areas is an obvious result of optimization.
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1. A plurality of conductive adhesives (portions of CA corresponding to A1, A2 of Fig. 27) alternate with a solder pad (portion of CA corresponding to A3) on the same gridline C141 (¶0250). While Kim does not specifically teach a plurality of solder pads, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the single solder pad as more than one solder pad because it would have merely required the duplication of parts. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). As such, the solder pad formed as a plurality of solder pads in modified-Kim would result in a plurality of solder pads and a plurality of conductive adhesives on the same gridline being arranged alternately.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1. In the embodiment of the photovoltaic module of Fig. 27, the conductive adhesive is a solder material (¶0251). However, Kim elsewhere teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the conductive adhesive to comprise conductive particles and an adhesive body for bonding the conductive particles, the adhesive body comprising an organic polymer (¶0229, 0230, 0286), because it would have been a suitable material for that use. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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 Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights