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
Claims 1-10 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Taiwan on 5/21/2024. It is noted that applicant filed a certified copy of application TW 113 118 779.
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giron et al. (US 2015/0136207).
Regarding claim 1, Giron discloses a solar module (shown in fig. 1), comprising:
a plurality of solar cells (6), wherein the plurality of solar cells are welded and connected in series to define a plurality of solar battery string groups (see para [0024]), and the plurality of solar cells are connected in series with a predetermined spacing distance (see para [0063]) therebetween in a first direction to form each of the plurality of solar battery string groups (shown in fig. 1),
wherein a width of each of the plurality of solar cells in the first direction is a first length, a length of each of the plurality of solar cells in a second direction is a second length (see para [0013], and a ratio of the second length to the first length is in a disclosed range of 1:5 to 1:30 (see para [0013]), which overlaps applicant’s cited ratio greater than 10; and
a carrier plate including a front cover and a back cover (2, 1) (see para [0059]),
wherein the plurality of solar battery string groups are pressed in series or in parallel between the front cover and the back cover via a plurality of bus strips, wherein the plurality of solar battery string groups on both sides of each of the plurality of bus strips are connected in series, and the plurality of solar battery string groups are connected in parallel between any two of the plurality of bus strips (7) (shown in fig. 1 see para [0059]-[0063]).
The court has held where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Giron discloses a solar module of claim 1, wherein the front cover, the back cover and the plurality of solar battery string groups have an adhesive intermediate film (3) therebetween (shown in fig. 2, see para [0060]).
Regarding claim 3, Giron discloses a solar module of claim 1, wherein the front cover and the back cover are made of transparent material (glass) (see para [0059]).
Regarding claim 4, Giron discloses a solar module of claim 3, wherein the transparent material is glass or resin (glass) (see para [0059]).
Regarding claim 5, Giron discloses a solar module of claim 1, wherein the first length is greater than 7 mm (see para [0013], see also obviousness discussion of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Giron discloses a solar module of claim 1, wherein a total number of the plurality of solar cells in each of the plurality of solar battery string groups does not exceed 100 (shown in fig. 4 wherein total number of cells is 24).
Regarding claim 7, Giron discloses a solar module of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the predetermined spacing distance is less than 3 mm. Giron discloses the spacing is a result effective variable determining the amount of light that passes through or is absorbed (see para [0063]).
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giron et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Detrick et al. (US 2021/0143772).
Regarding claim 8, Giron discloses a solar module of claim 1, but does not disclose the module further comprises at least one bypass diode electrically connected between any two of the plurality of bus strips.
Detrick is analogous art to Grion as Detrick discloses a solar cell module comprising solar cells connected in series and parallel (shown in fig. 5, see para [0081]). Detrick discloses a bypass diode (322) electrically connected between any two bus strips (320) (shown in fig. 5, see para [0081]-[0084]).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements (i.e., the cell and bus bar layout of Giron and the bypass diodes of Detrick), according to known methods (as disclosed by Detrick), wherein the result is predictable (as disclosed by Detrick para [0084]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Giron discloses a solar module of claim 8, further comprising a cable electrically connected to one end of the at least one bypass diode (specifically, the diode is connected between two bus bars as recited in claim 8, from which this depends. A bus bar is electrically connected to a junction box, therefore a cable (1814) (see para abstract, [0187]-[0188], [0199]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Giron discloses a solar module of claim 9, further comprising a terminal electrically connected to the other end of the at least one bypass diode (see discussion of claim 9, see abstract, para [0187]-[0188], [0195]-[0196]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previous cited art made of record in the previous office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Babayan et al. (US 2017/0288081) (module with cell strings), Vornbrock et al. (US 2015/0263182) (module with cell strings), Huang et al. (US 2019/0028057).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 M-F.
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 at (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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
