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 March 16th, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The rejections over Huang are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN-114420782-A) in view of Tao et al. (US 12,261,229 B1). Huang is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 1, Huang discloses a back contact solar cell string group (Fig. 2 – Page 1, Background Technique, 1st Paragraph), comprising at least two solar cell strings arranged along a first direction (See Annotated Huang Fig. 3, below), wherein each of the at least two solar cell strings comprise a plurality of solar cells arranged along a second direction (See Annotated Huang Fig. 3, below, top and bottom rows); wherein the plurality of solar cells each comprises a chamfered edge and a non-chamfered edge that are opposite to each other along the second direction (See Annotated Huang Fig. 3, below) and a plurality of welding strips extending along the second direction that are connected to the plurality of solar cells (Fig. 3, #210 – Page 5, 4th Paragraph), wherein two adjacent solar cells in a solar cell string are electrically connected by welding strips arranged along the first direction (Fig. 3, #2020), wherein a distance between two welding strips adjacent to each other along the first direction in the solar cell string is d1 (See Annotated Huang Fig. 3, below), wherein in each of the at least two solar cells welding strips adjacent to two edges of the plurality of solar cells along the first direction are end welding strips (See Annotated Huang Fig. 3, below).
In regards to the limitation, “a distance between end welding strips of two solar cell strings adjacent to each other along the first direction is d2, where 0.6 ≤ d2/d1 < 1. Huang discloses d1 = L, which corresponds to 3.5-20 mm (See Annotated Huang Fig. 3, below & Page 8, 3rd Paragraph). Below in Annotated Huang Fig. 3, d2 = S-2(L), wherein S = 8-50 mm (See Annotated Huang Fig. 3, below & Page 8, 3rd Paragraph). Thus, when S=10.25 mm, and d1 (L) = 3.5 mm, d2 is equal to 3.25, and d2/d1=0.93, thus anticipating a point in the relationship 0.6 ≤ d2/d1 < 1. Other variations are possible that meet the claimed relationship such as when S=28 mm, and d1= 10mm results in the ratio 0.8.
Annotated Huang Fig. 3
PNG
media_image1.png
1056
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Huang differs from Applicants configuration in that the half cells of Huang are not arranged to form a “diamond” type configuration such that the end welding strips are disconnected at chamfered edges of the plurality of solar cells. For example, Applicant’s Figure 2 discloses half cells that are arranged such that they form a diamond type configuration (See Applicant’s Annotated Fig. 2, below).
Applicant’s Annotated Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
802
816
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tao et al. discloses half-cells that form a “diamond” type configuration such that the end welding strips are disconnected at chamfered edges of the plurality of solar cells (Fig. 6 – Column 9, Lines 52-56). Tao et al. discloses that this configuration results in deviation and distortion of the conductive wire during soldering and lamination can be prevented and the PV module has high yield (Column 6, Lines, 45-54). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form a “diamond” type configuration such that the end welding strips are disconnected at chamfered edges of the plurality of solar cells in Huang’s configuration for the advantage of forming connections that do not deviate and distort during soldering and lamination while also ensuring that the method of producing PV modules has a high yield.
In view of Claim 2, Huang and Tao et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Huang discloses that the overall length of each solar cell can be 156.75 mm (Page 7, 1st Paragraph – for example when the solar cell is square, all sides would be 156.75 mm). As pointed out above, when d1 = 10 mm, it can satisfy the above relationship. Huang discloses that there can be 16 grid lines (welding strips), thus the overall length from the 1st grid line to the 16th grid line would be 15(10) = 150 mm. Therefore the distance d3 on Huang’s solar cell can be defined as d3= (156.75mm-150mm)/2= 3.375mm. Thus, the ratio of Huang’s d3/d2 = 3.375mm/10mm = 0.3375, thus anticipating a point within the relationship 0.2 ≤ d3/d2 ≤ 0.4.
In view of Claim 3, Huang and Tao et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Huang discloses in the above example that d3 = 3.375 mm and d1 is = 10mm.
In view of Claim 4, Huang and Tao et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. As pointed above, Huang discloses that other variations are possible that meet the claimed relationship such as when S=28 mm, and d1= 10mm, which results in a value of d2 = 8mm.
In view of Claim 5, Huang and Tao et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Huang does not disclose two edges of a respective solar cell of the plurality of solar cells along the second direction are a chamfered edge and a non-chamfered edge (Fig. 7, respectively, such that the chamfered edge of the respective solar cell is adjacent to and electrically connected to a chamfered edge of an adjacent solar cell by a welding strip, and wherein the non-chamfered edge of the respective solar cell is adjacent to and electrically connected to a non-chamfered edge of another adjacent solar cell by another welding strip (See Annotated Huang Fig. 7, below).
Annotated Huang Fig. 7
PNG
media_image3.png
892
698
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 8, Huang and Tao et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 5. Huang discloses where along the second direction a distance between two solar cells whose chamfered edges are adjacent to each other is greater than a distance between two solar cells whose non-chamfered edges are adjacent to each other (See Annotated Huang Fig. 7 above, the distance from the edge of the chamfered corner to the opposite edge of the adjacent solar cells chamfered corner is greater than the non-chamfered distance).
In view of Claim 10, Huang and Tao et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Huang discloses a first polarity connection portion of a respective solar cell of the plurality of solar cells is electrically connected to a second polarity connection adjacent solar cell by a welding strip (Fig. 3, #201-#202 – Page 9, 3rd Paragraph, the first conductivity type is positive polarity and the conductive type is negative polarity), wherein the welding strip connected to the first polarity connection portion of the respective solar cell and the welding strip connected to the second polarity connection portion of the respective solar cell are alternately arranged and spaced with each other along the first direction (See Annotated Huang Fig. 3, above, #201 is alternated with #202 along the first direction), the first polarity connection portion and the second polarity connection portion having opposite polarities (Page 9, 3rd Paragraph, last sentence “the first conductivity type is positive polarity and the conductive type is negative polarity” – also see Page 1, Background technique – also see Page 7, 2nd-3rd Paragraph).
In view of Claim 11, Huang and Tao et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Huang discloses that the first polarity connection is a p-type layer of the respective solar cell, and the second polarity connection portion is an N-type doped layer of the respective solar cell (Page 6, 4th Paragraph & Page 9, 3rd Paragraph).
In view of Claim 12, Huang and Tao et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Huang discloses the first polarity connection portion is a positive gate electrode of the respective solar cell and the second polarity connection portion is a negative gate electrode of the respective solar cell (Page 6, 4th Paragraph & Page 9, 3rd Paragraph).
In view of Claim 13, Huang discloses a photovoltaic module comprising at least one a back contact solar cell string group (Fig. 2 – Page 1, Background Technique, 1st Paragraph), comprising at least two solar cell strings arranged along a first direction (See Annotated Huang Fig. 3, below), wherein each of the at least two solar cell strings comprise a plurality of solar cells arranged along a second direction (See Annotated Huang Fig. 3, below, top and bottom rows); wherein the plurality of solar cells each comprises a chamfered edge and a non-chamfered edge that are opposite to each other along the second direction (See Annotated Huang Fig. 3, below) and a plurality of welding strips extending along the second direction that are connected to the plurality of solar cells (Fig. 3, #210 – Page 5, 4th Paragraph), wherein two adjacent solar cells in a solar cell string are electrically connected by welding strips arranged along the first direction (Fig. 3, #2020), wherein a distance between two welding strips adjacent to each other along the first direction in the solar cell string is d1 (See Annotated Huang Fig. 3, below), wherein in each of the at least two solar cells welding strips adjacent to two edges of the plurality of solar cells along the first direction are end welding strips (See Annotated Huang Fig. 3, below).
In regards to the limitation, “a distance between end welding strips of two solar cell strings adjacent to each other along the first direction is d2, where 0.6 ≤ d2/d1 < 1. Huang discloses d1 = L, which corresponds to 3.5-20 mm (See Annotated Huang Fig. 3, below & Page 8, 3rd Paragraph). Below in Annotated Huang Fig. 3, d2 = S-2(L), wherein S = 8-50 mm (See Annotated Huang Fig. 3, below & Page 8, 3rd Paragraph). Thus, when S=10.25 mm, and d1 (L) = 3.5 mm, d2 is equal to 3.25, and d2/d1=0.93, thus anticipating a point in the relationship 0.6 ≤ d2/d1 < 1. Other variations are possible that meet the claimed relationship such as when S=28 mm, and d1= 10mm results in the ratio 0.8.
Annotated Huang Fig. 3
PNG
media_image1.png
1056
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Huang differs from Applicants configuration in that the half cells of Huang are not arranged to form a “diamond” type configuration such that the end welding strips are disconnected at chamfered edges of the plurality of solar cells. For example, Applicant’s Figure 2 discloses half cells that are arranged such that they form a diamond type configuration (See Applicant’s Annotated Fig. 2, below).
Applicant’s Annotated Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
802
816
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tao et al. discloses half-cells that form a “diamond” type configuration such that the end welding strips are disconnected at chamfered edges of the plurality of solar cells (Fig. 6 – Column 9, Lines 52-56). Tao et al. discloses that this configuration results in deviation and distortion of the conductive wire during soldering and lamination can be prevented and the PV module has high yield (Column 6, Lines, 45-54). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form a “diamond” type configuration such that the end welding strips are disconnected at chamfered edges of the plurality of solar cells in Huang’s configuration for the advantage of forming connections that do not deviate and distort during soldering and lamination while also ensuring that the method of producing PV modules has a high yield.
In view of Claim 14, Huang and Tao et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 13. Huang discloses that the overall length of each solar cell can be 156.75 mm (Page 7, 1st Paragraph – for example when the solar cell is square, all sides would be 156.75 mm). As pointed out above, when d1 = 10 mm, it can satisfy the above relationship. Huang discloses that there can be 16 grid lines (welding strips), thus the overall length from the 1st grid line to the 16th grid line would be 15(10) = 150 mm. Therefore the distance d3 on Huang’s solar cell can be defined as d3= (156.75mm-150mm)/2= 3.375mm. Thus, the ratio of Huang’s d3/d2 = 3.375mm/10mm = 0.3375, thus anticipating a point within the relationship 0.2 ≤ d3/d2 ≤ 0.4.
In view of Claim 15, Huang and Tao et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 14. Huang discloses in the above example that d3 = 3.375 mm and d1 is = 10mm.
In view of Claim 16, Huang and Tao et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 13. As pointed above, Huang discloses that other variations are possible that meet the claimed relationship such as when S=28 mm, and d1= 10mm, which results in a value of d2 = 8mm.
In view of Claim 17, Huang and Tao et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 13. Huang does not disclose two edges of a respective solar cell of the plurality of solar cells along the second direction are a chamfered edge and a non-chamfered edge (Fig. 7, respectively, such that the chamfered edge of the respective solar cell is adjacent to and electrically connected to a chamfered edge of an adjacent solar cell by a welding strip, and wherein the non-chamfered edge of the respective solar cell is adjacent to and electrically connected to a non-chamfered edge of another adjacent solar cell by another welding strip (See Annotated Huang Fig. 7, below).
Annotated Huang Fig. 7
PNG
media_image3.png
892
698
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 20, Huang and Tao et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 17. Huang discloses where along the second direction a distance between two solar cells whose chamfered edges are adjacent to each other is greater than a distance between two solar cells whose non-chamfered edges are adjacent to each other (See Annotated Huang Fig. 7 above, the distance from the edge of the chamfered corner to the opposite edge of the adjacent solar cells chamfered corner is greater than the non-chamfered distance).
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN-114420782-A) in view of Tao et al. (US 12,261,229 B1) in view of Kang et al. (US 2011/0132425 A1). Huang is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 6, Huang and Tao et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 5. While Huang discloses wherein in each of the at least two solar cell strings, two solar cells whose non-chamfered edges are adjacent to each other are electrically connected by m welding strips (Fig. 3, #201 or #202 has 4 welding strips thus m = 4), and wherein two solar cells whose chamfered edges are adjacent to each other are electrically connected by n welding strips, n being an even number (Fig. 3, #201 or #202 has 4 welding strips thus n = 4), but does not disclose a relationship where the number of welding strips are offset by 1 such that the relationship m – n = 1 is satisfied.
Kang et al. discloses solar cell strings can be arranged such that m = 3 and n = 2, thus m – n = 1 is satisfied (Fig. 7, #10 is present at 3 locations adjacent two solar cells, and 2 locations adjacent two solar cells). Kang et al. discloses that this type of connection can be easily performed yielding in an improved yield for module processing (Paragraph 0100). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use Kang et al. arranged such that the relationship where the number of welding strips are offset by 1 such that the relationship m – n = 1 is satisfied for the advantages of using a simpler connection that easily improves process yield for module processing.
In view of Claim 18, Huang and Tao et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 17. While Huang discloses wherein in each of the at least two solar cell strings, two solar cells whose non-chamfered edges are adjacent to each other are electrically connected by m welding strips (Fig. 3, #201 or #202 has 4 welding strips thus m = 4), and wherein two solar cells whose chamfered edges are adjacent to each other are electrically connected by n welding strips, n being an even number (Fig. 3, #201 or #202 has 4 welding strips thus n = 4), but does not disclose a relationship where the number of welding strips are offset by 1 such that the relationship m – n = 1 is satisfied.
Kang et al. discloses solar cell strings can be arranged such that m = 3 and n = 2, thus m – n = 1 is satisfied (Fig. 7, #10 is present at 3 locations adjacent two solar cells, and 2 locations adjacent two solar cells). Kang et al. discloses that this type of connection can be easily performed yielding in an improved yield for module processing (Paragraph 0100). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use Kang et al. arranged such that the relationship where the number of welding strips are offset by 1 such that the relationship m – n = 1 is satisfied for the advantages of using a simpler connection that easily improves process yield for module processing.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN-114420782-A) in view of Tao et al. (US 12,261,229 B1) in view of Kang et al. (US 2011/0132425 A1) in view of Morad et al. (US 2019/0051789 A1). Huang is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 7, Huang, Tao et al., and Kang et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Modified Huang does not disclose each of the welding strips is located between the two solar cells whose non-chamfered edges are adjacent to each other, wherein an extension line of each of the end welding strips passes through chamfered regions of the plurality of solar cells.
Morad et al. discloses a configuration where adjacent solar cells are arranged in a super cell as mirror images of each other (Fig. 5G & Paragraph 0134), and that this configuration of arranged of solar cells may efficiently fill the area of a solar module (Paragraph 0262). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to substitute the arranged of Morad et al. solar cells (Fig. 5G) for the configuration shown in Huang (Fig. 2) for the advantage of efficiently filling the area of the back contact solar cell string group, wherein applying the same welding strip configuration of Huang to Fig. 5G would result in each of the welding strips is located between the two solar cells whose non-chamfered edges are adjacent to each other, wherein an extension line of each of the end welding strips passes through chamfered regions of the plurality of solar cells.
In view of Claim 19, Huang, Tao et al., and Kang et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 18. Modified Huang does not disclose each of the welding strips is located between the two solar cells whose non-chamfered edges are adjacent to each other, wherein an extension line of each of the end welding strips passes through chamfered regions of the plurality of solar cells.
Morad et al. discloses a configuration where adjacent solar cells are arranged in a super cell as mirror images of each other (Fig. 5G & Paragraph 0134), and that this configuration of arranged of solar cells may efficiently fill the area of a solar module (Paragraph 0262). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to substitute the arranged of Morad et al. solar cells (Fig. 5G) for the configuration shown in Huang (Fig. 2) for the advantage of efficiently filling the area of the back contact solar cell string group, wherein applying the same welding strip configuration of Huang to Fig. 5G would result in each of the welding strips is located between the two solar cells whose non-chamfered edges are adjacent to each other, wherein an extension line of each of the end welding strips passes through chamfered regions of the plurality of solar cells.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN-114420782-A) in view of Tao et al. (US 12,261,229 B1) in view of Hu et al. (US 2024/0136457 A1). Huang is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 9, Huang and Tao et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Huang does not disclose the distance between the two solar cells whose chamfered edges are adjacent to each other ranges from 0.3-1.3 mm and/or the distance between the two solar cells whose non-chamfered edges are adjacent to each other ranges from 0.1-1.1 mm.
Hu et al. teaches that a preferred spacing between any two adjacent solar cells is less than 0.5 mm (Fig. 2, #4 & Paragraph 0037). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt a preferred spacing of 0.5 mm for the distance between the two solar cells whose chamfered edges are adjacent to each other and the distance between the two solar cells whose non-chamfered edges are adjacent to each other as one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that this is a preferred spacing between adjacent solar cells.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (CN-114420782-A) in view of Tao et al. (US 12,261,229 B1) in view of Murakami et al. (US 2012/0103386 A1). Huang is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 9, Huang and Tao et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 8. Huang does not disclose the distance between the two solar cells whose chamfered edges are adjacent to each other ranges from 0.3-1.3 mm and/or the distance between the two solar cells whose non-chamfered edges are adjacent to each other ranges from 0.1-1.1 mm.
Murakami et al. teaches that the spacing between solar cells is 0.5 mm (Paragraph 0049) and when using this spacing that no failure at the cell edge was observed (Paragraph 0052). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt a spacing of 0.5 mm for the distance between the two solar cells whose chamfered edges are adjacent to each other and the distance between the two solar cells whose non-chamfered edges are adjacent to each other as one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that this is a preferred spacing between adjacent solar cells in Huang et al. for the advantage of not having cells fail on the edge of the solar module.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds for rejection being used in the current rejection.
Applicant argues that Huang does not disclose a distance between the end welding strips and a respective edge of the plurality of solar cells along the first direction is d3, where 0.2 ≤ d3/d2 ≤ 0.4. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out to Applicant that Huang discloses that the overall length of each solar cell can be 156.75 mm (Page 7, 1st Paragraph – for example when the solar cell is square, all sides would be 156.75 mm). As pointed out above, when d1 = 10 mm, it can satisfy the above relationship. Huang discloses that there can be 16 grid lines (welding strips), thus the overall length from the 1st grid line to the 16th grid line would be 15(10) = 150 mm. Therefore, the distance d3 on Huang’s solar cell can be defined as d3= (156.75mm-150mm)/2= 3.375mm. Thus, the ratio of Huang’s d3/d2 = 3.375mm/10mm = 0.3375, thus anticipating a point within the relationship 0.2 ≤ d3/d2 ≤ 0.4.
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 DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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, Jeffrey T 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights