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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and species A in the reply filed on 1/30/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-9 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 1 recites “a plurality of PV ribbons” in the first two lines, and recites “the PV ribbon” in the last line. It is unclear which of the plurality of PV ribbons is specifically being referred to. Claims 2-9 are also rejected based on their dependence from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0380571 to Shin.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-9, Shin teaches a photovoltaic module (Figs. 1, 2), comprising a plurality of solar cells C1, C2, C3 and a plurality of PV ribbons (each of either the plurality of IC1 or the plurality of IC2 have a ribbon IC-C) configured to connect the plurality of solar cells (¶0040-0056), wherein each solar cell comprises a cell body 110, a gridline (either of C141 or C142), an insulating layer IL (Figs. 3, 4), and a conductive adhesive CA (¶0057-0071), the gridline is provided on a surface of the cell body, the conductive adhesive is provided on the gridline and is electrically connected to the gridline, the insulating layer covers the gridline and exposes the conductive adhesive, and the conductive adhesive is connected to the PV ribbon (Figs. 4 illustrate how CA is connected to an exemplary IC-C through an IC-S layer).
Each of the plurality of elements IC1 or IC2 comprise a ribbon IC-C and a solder layer IC-S (¶0064-0066), resulting in increased adhesive strength and favorable conductivity at the points at which the conductive adhesive CA and solder layer are coincident (¶0058). In a particular embodiment, these points have a defined shape determined by the insulating layer IL (Fig. 9, ¶0112-0116). It is within the broadest reasonable interpretation to read the points as solder pads, as they are specifically shaped portions at least partially covered with solder. Therefore, each solar cell comprises a solder pad, the solder pad and the conductive adhesive are respectively provided on the gridline and are electrically connected to the gridline, the insulating layer exposes the solder pad, and the solder pad and the conductive adhesive are respectively connected to the PV ribbon.
Per claim 3, Shin teaches the limitations of claim 1. A peripheral edge of the conductive adhesive CA is surrounded by the insulating layer IL (Figs. 4).
Per claim 4, Shin teaches the limitations of claim 1. A shape of the conductive adhesive CA is a circle (Fig. 9).
Per claim 7, Shin teaches the limitations of claim 1. The plurality of conductive adhesives CA located on the same gridline are uniformly arranged (Figs. 1, 9; MPEP §2125).
Per claim 8, Shin teaches the limitations of claim 1. The conductive adhesive CA comprises conductive particles CA-P and an adhesive body CA-I for bonding the conductive particles (Fig. 4(b), ¶0069).
Per claim 9, Shin teaches the limitations of claim 1. A material of the conductive particles comprises silver in an embodiment (¶0069).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0005905 to Jang.
Regarding claim 1, 4, 6, and 7, Jang teaches a photovoltaic module (Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of solar cells 10a, 10b, 10c and a plurality of PV ribbons 25 configured to connect the plurality of solar cells (¶0087, 0088), wherein each solar cell comprises a cell body 15, a gridline 11 or 13 (Fig. 2, ¶0090-0096), a pad 41, an insulating layer 43, and an adhesive 45 (Fig. 24, ¶0199-0207), the gridline is provided on a surface of the cell body, the pad and the adhesive are respectively provided on the gridline and are connected to the gridline, the insulating layer covers the gridline and exposes the pad and the conductive adhesive (layer 43 is intermittently formed in regions that do not occlude or overlap layer 43 or adhesive 45), and the pad and the adhesive are respectively connected to a PV ribbon.
In an embodiment that would at once be envisaged by a person having ordinary skill in the art, the pad 41 is formed as a solder pad (¶0117), and the adhesive 45 is formed as a conductive adhesive (¶0205 recites that adhesive 45 can be formed of the same material as pad 41, and solder is reasonably interpreted to be a conductive adhesive). A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim even if the reference does not describe "the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015), MPEP §2131.02.III.
Per claim 4, Jang teaches the limitations of claim 1. A shape of the conductive adhesive 45 is a polygon (Fig. 24, MPEP 2125).
Per claim 6, Jang teaches the limitations of claim 1. A plurality of solder pads 41 and a plurality of conductive adhesives 45 on the same gridline are arranged alternately (Fig. 24).
Per claim 7, Jang teaches the limitations of claim 1. A plurality of conductive adhesives 45 located on the same gridline are uniformly arranged (Fig. 24).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2008/0216887 to Hacke.
Regarding claim 2, Shin teaches the limitations of claim 1. In an interpretation, the gridline comprises a plurality of busbars C141 or C142, the insulating layer covers each busbar (Fig. 9), and the solder pad and conductive adhesive CA are provided on the busbar (see reasoning above). Shin does not teach that each busbar is connected to a plurality of fingers. Hacke teaches a gridline similar to that of Shin and comprised only of busbars (Fig. 2A), and further 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 gridline to comprise a plurality of busbars and fingers, each busbar connected to a plurality of fingers, because it is a known alternative design (¶0012, 0013). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Shin teaches the limitations of claim 1. Shin illustrates that the width of the conductive adhesive CA can be wider than a width of a corresponding ribbon (Figs. 9), or narrower than a width of the corresponding ribbon (Fig. 12), and that the width of the ribbon and area of overlap between the ribbon and gridline is a result effective variable that determines a resistance, short circuit resistance, and fill factor (¶0103, 0115, 0117, 0124, 0145, 0146). 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 optimize the width of the ribbons and overlap area between ribbons and gridlines in order to optimize resistance.
“[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.).
The claimed range of area of conductive adhesive is an obvious result of such optimization.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Jang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jang 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 optimize the area of the conductive adhesive 45 to reduce stress applied to insulating layer 43 or solder pad 41 (¶0207).
“[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.).
Conclusion
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