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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,328,970 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the structural limitations of instant claims 1-20 can be found in claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,328,970 B2.
With regards to claims 1 and 2, claims 1 and 18 of the ‘970 patent describes each of the structural limitations of the claims.
With regards to claims 2-18, claims 2-17 of the ‘970 patent describe each of the structural limitations of the claims.
With regards to claim 19 and 20, claims 18-19 of the ‘970 patent describe each of the structural limitations of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art (see pending DP rejection above):
Regarding claims 1 and 19
US 2016/0365469, STECKEMETZ et al. teaches a solar cell (array of solar cells which reads on the limitation “a photovoltaic module”), each solar cell comprising:
a silicon wafer (10) including an emitter layer (13) on one side of the silicon wafer (10) (see Fig. 1 and paras. 0040-0041);
a first passivation layer (14) arranged on a side of the emitter layer (13) away from the silicon wafer (10) (Fig. 1 and para. 0041);
a second passivation layer (18) arranged on a side of the silicon wafer (10) away from the emitter layer (13) (Fig. 1 and para. 0042); and
an electrode structure arranged on a side of the first passivation layer away from the silicon wafer, and/or arranged on a side of the second passivation layer away from the silicon wafer (see Fig. 5 and para. 0057), wherein the electrode structure comprises:
a plurality of pairs of sub-busbars extending along a first direction (see Fig. 4 below, direction X) and arranged opposite to each other along a second direction intersecting with the first direction (see annotated Fig. 4 below, direction Y), wherein for each pair of sub-busbars, each of the sub-busbars includes a first sub-portion (30a) and a second sub-portion (30b), the two first sub-portions (30a) of the pair of sub-busbars are spaced at a first interval (Fig. 4 and para. 0045), and the two second sub-portions (30b) of the pair of sub-busbars are spaced at a second interval less than the first interval (Fig. 4 and para.0057),
fingers (contact fingers 31) extending along the second direction and connected to the sub-busbars (Fig. 4 and paragraph 0045), and
electrode pads (33) sandwiched between the first sub-portions of the sub-busbars and connected to the first sub-portions (see annotated Fig. 4 below and para. 0049),
wherein along the first direction (X), at least one of the electrode pads (33) has a length equal to or less than a corresponding sub-portion (30a) (Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
384
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
STECKEMETZ et al. teaches connecting end portions (redundancy fingers 35) connected to the sub-busbars (Figs. 5-6 and paras. 0057-0059).
However, STECKEMETZ et al. does not teach the connecting end portions being provided at two ends of each of the sub-busbars.
US 2019/0259904, Kim et al. teaches a photovoltaic module (corresponding to the solar cell module 100 described in Figs. 1-2 and paragraph 0017] comprising:
a transparent cover plate (front substrate 110), an upper packaging layer (first resin film 131), a lower packaging layer (second sealing film 132), and a back plate (rear substrate 120), and at least one solar cell (150) [Figs. 1-2 and paragraph 0017], wherein the solar cell (150) comprises:
an electrode structure (see front electrode disclosed in Fig. 9 and paragraphs 0053-0055] comprising:
busbars (810) extending along a first direction, and fingers (220) extending along the second direction and arranged at two sides of the busbars (see Figs. 3 and 9, paragraphs 0030-0031],
wherein connecting end portions (corresponding to connecting electrodes 820) are provided at two ends of each of the busbars [Fig 9; see paragraphs 0045-0046 and 0053-0055], wherein along the first direction, the end of the bus bar is removed and the width of the connecting end portions (850) gradually varies in order to reduce or prevent shading loss (Fig. 9 and para. 0055).
However, Kim does not disclose providing the connecting end portions at two ends of each of the sub busbars. While Kim suggests providing the connecting end portions at opposing ends of the busbar, Kim does not provide motivation that would lead one of ordinary skill to provide the claimed connecting end portions at two ends of each of the sub-busbars.
Accordingly, one or ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the electrode structure of STECKEMETZ et al. and/or Kim et al. such that the connecting end portions are provided at two ends of each of the sub-busbars, because such a modification would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in STECKEMETZ et al. and/or Kim et al. as well as a change in the basic principle under which the prior art construction was designed to operate. [MPEP 2143.01 VI].
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - 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, Allison Bourke can be reached on (303)297-4684. 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721