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 .
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that present claims are drawn to an apparatus. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2114). Functional limitations are usually followed by a linking term “for”, “configured to”, “performing”, “carry out”, “execute” etc. and concerns operation of the apparatus. For instance, to provide heat to solder flux, to discharge cooling fluid to a lower position, in a case where transportation is stopped, wherein when restarting… (claim 1), controlling to a predetermined temperature (claim 2), to move the heat source to different positions (claim 10) refer to operational limitations and do not structurally contribute to the apparatus. Furthermore, examiner notes that, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” (MPEP 2115). For example, “solar batter module cell” and “solder flux” are workpiece materials which do not structurally limit the claimed bonding apparatus.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first position of a first cell”, “a second position” (claim 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-10 are 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.
With respect to claim 1, limitations in a case where….controls a temperature of the heat source until all of solar battery module cells in an offset section pass through a lower part of the soldering head (last 3 lines) are ambiguous because it is unclear what is meant by offset section & pass through? First of all, examiner notes that “in a case where…” sets a conditional phrase that is not a structural feature of the tabbing apparatus and may not be the case. Applicant’s fig. 2 shows offset section OS labeled A1 to An, where term “An” presumably represents solar cell(s), which can be a single cell or plurality of cells. However, the end of paragraph [63] in the specification states: “Here, soldering work under the above conditions is performed only in the offset section from A1 to An and subsequently, the control unit controls…” This description confounds the claimed feature because it states that soldering is performed only in the offset section. To the contrary, soldering is not performed in the offset section since soldering head 20 is outside of the offset section as seen in fig. 2. Moreover, it is confusing what is implied by conditional pass through feature since it appears that inherently, all cells from the offset section eventually pass through a lower part of the head for soldering. The recited conflicting and vague language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claim is taken to mean: the control unit controls a temperature of the heat source.
With respect to claims 2 and 4, until all of the solar battery module cells in the offset section pass through the lower part is ambiguous because it is unclear what is meant by offset section & pass through. The claims are indefinite in scope for reasons explained in claim 1 above. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims are taken to mean: the control unit operates the cooling unit and the heat source.
With respect to claim 3, features a soldering time for which the solar battery module cells in the offset section are exposed to the heat source and soldered under the soldering to be increased are ambiguous. First, phrase “soldered under the soldering” appears to be incomplete; it likely implies soldered under the soldering head. Secondly, it is conflicting what is meant by “cells in the offset section are exposed to the heat source” because the heat source 21 is away from the offset section as seen in fig. 2. The claim is also indefinite in scope concerning “offset section” for reasons explained in claim 1 above. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claim is taken to mean: the control unit controls a soldering time together with the heat source.
With respect to claim 10, limitations “when the transportation…from the second position to the first position” are indefinite in scope because it is unclear what is meant by the recited positions. Neither first position nor the second position is shown in any figure (note the drawing objection above). The original specification repeats this same language. Due to lack of sufficient guidance in the specification, one skilled in the art would not be able to determine metes and bounds of the claim. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claim is taken to mean: the control unit controls the driving unit to move the heat source.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey et al. (WO 96/17387, see attached document, hereafter “Harvey”).
Regarding claim 1, Harvey discloses a tabbing device for manufacturing a solar battery module (figs. 4-11), the tabbing device comprising: a solar battery module cell C (figs. 2-3) transported by a conveyor transport equipment 30 & 45 (figs. 4-5; pg. 19- last paragraph); a soldering head 120 provided on an upper side of the solar battery module cell and having embedded therein a heat source 123 (fig. 5; paragraph bridging pgs. 31-32) configured to provide heat to solder flux coated on the solar battery module cell being transported; a cooling unit 160 (manifold) installed to be positioned outside the soldering head, and configured to discharge cooling fluid (air) by nozzles 163 to a lower position of the soldering head and cool the soldering head (fig. 4, pg. 36- second paragraph); and a control unit 200 configured to control operations of the cooling unit 160 and the soldering head 120 (fig. 11; pg. 39, 47).
Concerning control unit, Harvey teaches that the controller 200 causes actuator 121 (fig. 11) to keep the soldering head in its ‘down’ heating position to melt the solder paste on the solar cell and after shutting off the hot air, also operates the valves to cause flow of cooling air out of pipes 162A-B (pg. 47). The cooling unit operated in sequence with the hot air solidifies the solder that has been melted by the soldering head, thereby producing a strong solder bond between the ribbons and the cell. In this manner, artisan of ordinary skill would appreciate that the programmable controller 200 along with associated actuators & valves in Harvey (fig. 11) is programmed to control temperature of the heat source as well as the cooling unit. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to control the heating and cooling temperature to appropriate range(s) in order to achieve strong solder bond between the ribbons and the cell, as suggested in Harvey.
As to claims 2 and 4, Harvey discloses that the control unit operates the cooling unit and the heat source (fig. 11, pg. 39).
As to claim 3, Harvey discloses that control unit controls a soldering time together with the heat source (fig. 11, pg. 39).
As to claim 5, Harvey discloses that the cooling unit comprises: a cooling fluid supply unit 160 configured to provide the cooling fluid; a nozzle unit 163 installed adjacent to the outside of the soldering head and configured to discharge the cooling fluid; and a connection hose 162a/162b (pipes) connecting the cooling fluid supply unit and the nozzle unit (fig. 4, pg. 36).
As to claim 6, Harvey is silent in terms of nozzle unit material and hose/pipes material. However, there is only a finite number of predictable materials options for the nozzle and the pipe/hose, which encompasses metal, plastic or composite/flexible. The objective is to direct the cooling air flow and so, a person of ordinary skill has good reason (guiding air flow) to pursue the known predictable options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a suitable nozzle metal material and flexible pipe/hose material within common knowledge of skilled artisan in the cooling unit of Harvey in order to guide the cooling air flow.
As to claim 7, Harvey discloses that the nozzle unit comprises an air nozzle 163 and the cooling fluid comprises air (fig. 4).
As to claim 8, Harvey discloses a driving unit 121 configured to transport the soldering head 120 in a movement according to a conveyor 30 (fig. 5), wherein the driving unit is controlled by the control unit 200 (fig. 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the driving unit to move the soldering head in a reciprocal movement direction of the conveyor in the apparatus of Harvey with the motivation to align and place the head in a desired position for soldering the solar cells.
As to claim 9, Harvey teaches that the soldering head can comprise any heater element capable of heating the air to soften the solder paste for soldering purposes (pg. 32). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize an infrared lamp in the soldering head of Harvey in order to heat the solder for soldering purposes.
As to claim 10, Harvey teaches that the control unit 200 controls the driving unit to move the heat source 120 (fig. 11, pg. 48).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/14/25 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735