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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18-26, and 31-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Djamel (US Pub No. 2023/0074235)
Regarding Claim 18, Djamel et al. teaches a solar module [Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, 0062], comprising:
a plurality of 3-terminal tandem (3TT) solar cells which are interconnected to form at
least one string [See T1 to T3 as the terminals, Fig. 6-7, 0067], and
at least two current input connections at a current input of the solar module and/or at
least two current output connections at a current output of the solar module [See dashed lines for connections of T1 to T3 as current connections, Fig. 7-9, 0067],
wherein each 3TT solar cell has a stack with a top cell and a bottom cell arranged below
it, wherein the top cell and the bottom cell differ from one another in terms of an electrical
voltage generated when exposed to light [Fig. 7, 0021, 0062, the cell is a tandem solar cell],
wherein each 3TT solar cell has three terminal contacts with a top contact, which makes
electrical contact with a side of the top cell facing away from the bottom cell, a bottom contact,
which makes electrical contact with a side of the bottom cell facing away from the top cell, and
a center tap contact, which makes electrical contact with the 3TT solar cell at an interface
between the top cell and the bottom cell [Fig. 7, see area of dashed rectangle, 0062, see contacts attached to T1 and T2 and see line between the cells in the dashed rectangle area as the contacts],
wherein a first of the current input connections is connected to at least one of the
terminal contacts of a first of the 3TT solar cells closest to the current input, and wherein a
second of the current input connections is connected to at least one of the terminal contacts of
a second of the 3TT solar cells neighboring the first 3TT solar cell [Fig. 6 and 7, 0062], and/or
wherein
(i) wherein in each of the strings a first bypass diode is connected in parallel with the
3TT solar cells of the string and wherein furthermore, in each of the strings, a second bypass
diode is connected in parallel with the top cell and/or bottom cell of a last 3TT solar cell of the
string [Fig. 6, top right of diagram, 0062, and in para 59, each string and/or module may further comprise a diode between T1 and T2].
Regarding Claim 19, Djamel et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Djamel et al. teaches wherein the top cell and the bottom cell of each of the 3TT solar cells are arranged in an r-type configuration in reverse polarity, and
wherein the first current input connection is connected to the center tap contact of the
first 3TT solar cell and the second current input connection is connected to the center tap
contact of the second solar cell [Fig. 6-7, top right of figure 6, 0059]
Regarding Claim 20, Djamel et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Djamel et al is silent on wherein the electrical voltage of the top cell generated when exposed to light, and the electrical voltage of the bottom cell generated when exposed to light, are substantially in a ratio of m to n, where m and n are natural numbers, and wherein in each case n top cells connected in series are connected in parallel with m bottom cells connect in series.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the solar cell, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the solar cell are changed, the precise parameters of the solar cell would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the electrical voltage of the top cell generated when exposed to light, and the electrical voltage of the bottom cell generated when exposed to light, are substantially in a ratio of m to n, where m and n are natural numbers, and wherein in each case n top cells connected in series are connected in parallel with m bottom cells connect in series.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the solar cell to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 21, Djamel et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Djamel et al is silent on wherein m ≥ 2 and wherein n ≥ 1, and
wherein a number of the current input connections and/or a number of the current output
connections are equal to or greater than a larger of the two values n and m.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the solar cell, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the solar cell are changed, the precise parameters of the solar cell would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein m ≥ 2 and wherein n ≥ 1, and wherein a number of the current input connections and/or a number of the current output connections are equal to or greater than a larger of the two values n and m.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the solar cell to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 22, Djamel et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Djamel et al. is silent on wherein m=2 and n=1,
wherein, with the exception of the last 3TT solar cell, each bottom contact of a 3TT
solar cell is connected to the center tap contact of the neighboring next 3TT solar cell, and
wherein, with the exception of the last and the penultimate 3TT solar cell, each top
contact of a 3TT solar cell is connected to the center tap contact of the next but one following
3TT solar cell.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the solar cell, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the solar cell are changed, the precise parameters of the solar cell would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein m=2 and n=1, wherein, with the exception of the last 3TT solar cell, each bottom contact of a 3TT solar cell is connected to the center tap contact of the neighboring next 3TT solar cell, and wherein, with the exception of the last and the penultimate 3TT solar cell, each top contact of a 3TT solar cell is connected to the center tap contact of the next but one following 3TT solar cell.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the solar cell to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 23, Djamel et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Djamel et al. teaches wherein in each of the strings a first bypass diode is connected in parallel with the 3TT solar cells of the string and wherein furthermore, in each of the strings, a second bypass diode is connected in parallel with the top cell and/or bottom cell of a last 3TT solar cell of the string,
And wherein the first bypass diode is electrically connected on the one hand to the center
tap contact of a first 3TT solar cell of the string and on the other hand to the bottom contact or the top contact of the last 3TT solar cell of the string, and
wherein the second bypass diode is electrically connected on the one hand to the top
contact or the bottom contact of the last 3TT solar cell of the string and on the other hand to
the center tap contact of the last 3TT solar cell of the string [Fig. 6-7, 0059, 0062].
Regarding Claim 24, Djamel et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Djamel et al. teaches wherein the solar module has at least one further current input connection [Fig. 23, 0066].
Regarding Claim 25, Djamel et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Djamel et al. teaches wherein plural 3TT solar cells are arranged laterally side-by-side over an entire width (B) of the solar module and are electrically connected to form a sub-string, and
wherein the first bypass diode and, optionally, the second bypass diode are each
arranged laterally beside the sub-string [Fig. 6-7, 0052, 0062].
Regarding Claim 26, Djamel et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Djamel et al. teaches wherein plural 3TT solar cells are arranged laterally side-by-side over a first half of a width (B) of the solar module and are electrically connected to form a first sub-string, and a
plurality of 3TT solar cells are arranged laterally side-by-side over a second half of the width
of the solar module and are electrically connected to form a second sub-string, wherein the first
sub-string and the second sub-string are connected in parallel with one another, and
wherein the first bypass diode [Fig. 6-7, 0052, 0066].
Regarding Claim 29, Djamel et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Djamel et al. teaches wherein the bottom solar cell is a rear contact solar cell, in which terminal contacts of both polarities are arranged interdigitated on a rear side of the bottom solar cell facing away
from the top solar cell, and wherein one of the terminal contacts of the bottom solar cell acts
as the center tap contact [0062].
Regarding Claim 30, Djamel et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Djamel et al. teaches a plurality of solar modules according to claim 18 [see rejection of claim 1, Fig. 6-7],
And silent wherein in the case of neighboring solar modules in each case each of the current output connections of one of the solar modules is electrically connected to an associated one of the
current input connections of the neighboring one of the solar modules.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the solar cell, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the solar cell are changed, the precise parameters of the solar cell would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein in the case of neighboring solar modules in each case each of the current output connections of one of the solar modules is electrically connected to an associated one of the current input connections of the neighboring one of the solar modules.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the solar cell to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 31, Djamel et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Djamel et al. is silent on wherein, with the exception of the current input connections of a first of the solar modules and the current output connections of a last of the solar modules, the current input
connections of each of the solar modules are electrically isolated from one another and the
current output connections of each of the solar modules are electrically isolated from one
another.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the solar cell, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the solar cell are changed, the precise parameters of the solar cell would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein, with the exception of the current input connections of a first of the solar modules and the current output connections of a last of the solar modules, the current input connections of each of the solar modules are electrically isolated from one another and the current output connections of each of the solar modules are electrically isolated from one another.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the solar cell to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 32, Djamel et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Djamel et al. is silent on wherein in the case of a first of the solar modules the at least two current input connections are electrically short-circuited with one another or interconnected, and/or wherein
in the case of a last of the solar modules the at least two current output connections are
electrically short-circuited with one another or interconnected.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the solar cell, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the solar cell are changed, the precise parameters of the solar cell would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein in the case of a first of the solar modules the at least two current input connections are electrically short-circuited with one another or interconnected, and/or wherein in the case of a last of the solar modules the at least two current output connections are electrically short-circuited with one another or interconnected. ” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the solar cell to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
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.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Djamel (US Pub No. 2023/0074235) in view of Park (US Pub No. 2012/0180843)
Regarding Claim 27, Djamel et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Djamel et al. is silent on wherein the first and the second bypass diode are received in a common diode box.
Park et al. teaches a first and second diode in a junction box [0141].
Since Djamel et al. teaches the use of a first and second diode, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the first and second diode of Djamel et al. with the junction box of Park et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Djamel (US Pub No. 2023/0074235) in view of Khan (Us Pub No. 2021/0273127)
Regarding Claim 28, Djamel et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Djamel et al. is silent on wherein the top cell is a perovskite solar cell and the bottom cell is a silicon solar cell.
Khan et al. teaches the use of a perovskite and silicon tandem solar cell [abstract].
Since Djamel et al. teaches the use of a tandem solar cell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the tandem cell of Djamel et al. with the perovskite and silicon tandem solar cell of Khan et al as it is merely the selection of a conventional engineering design and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728