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 .
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.
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 1-7 and 9-11 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.
Claim 1 lines 20-21 contains the limitation “a cut-off conductive connector” which does not have clear antecedent basis since a plurality of conductive connectors have been set forth. Appropriate clarification and/or correction is required.
Claims 2-7 and 9-11 are additionally rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim and including all of the limitations thereof.
Claim 6 contains the limitation “wherein a length of the suspended segment is less than a distance between the conductive connector and the metal grid line adjacent to the conductive connector in the second direction” which is unclear. First, the terms “a conductive connector” and “a metal grid line” do not have proper antecedent basis since a plurality of conductive connectors and a plurality of metal grid lines has been set forth and it is unclear if one or the plurality of conductive connectors and metal grid lines previously set forth is being referred to. Second, claim 5 from which claim 6 depends includes the limitation “the conductive connectors are fixedly connected to the metal grid lines”. It is unclear what structure is required and where the distance between a conductive connector and metal grid line is measured or located if a respective conductive connector and metal grid line are fixedly connected. For the purpose of this Office Action, any structure that satisfies claim 5 will be treated as also satisfying claim 6. Appropriate correction and clarification is 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terao (US 2016/0380120) in view of Ku et al. (US 2017/0256662).
Regarding claim 1, Terao discloses a cell string in Figure 3E, comprising:
a plurality of back-contact solar cells (302) arranged in a first direction ([53]), a backlight surface of each of the back-contact solar cells having P-type doped layers (304) and N-type doped layers (306) which are alternately arranged in sequence in a second direction (Figure 3B and 3E, [42] and [47]), the P-type doped layers (304) and the N-type doped layers (306) having opposite polarities ([42] and [47]), and the second direction intersecting the first direction (First and second direction are perpendicular in Figure 3E);
a spacer region provided between two adjacent back-contact solar cells (As shown in Figure 3A the cells are spaced from each other), in the two adjacent back-contact solar cells, a P-type doped layer (304) of one back-contact solar cell corresponding to an N-type doped layer (306) of the other back-contact solar cell in the first direction (Figure 3E and [46]-[47], the p-type region of a first cell is aligned with the n-type region of the second cell);
a plurality of conductive connectors (conductive wires 310, [46]-[49]), wherein the plurality of conductive connectors (310) extend in the first direction across the plurality of back-contact solar cells (Figure 3E), the plurality of conductive connectors are arranged at intervals in the second direction (Figure 3E and [46]-[49], the conductive wires are aligned with the alternating p and n-type regions at intervals), in the two adjacent back contact solar cells each of the plurality of conductive connectors is located above the P-type doped layer (304) of one back contact solar cell and the N-type doped layer (306) of the other back contact solar cell, and is fixedly and conductively connected to the P-type doped layer (304) and the N-type doped layer (306), and each of the P-type doped layers (304) and each of the N-type doped layers (306) correspond to one of the plurality of conductive connectors (Figures 3E and [46]-[49]);
at a position corresponding to the spacer region (space between cells), in the second direction, every other conductive connector (conductive wire 310) is cut off in the first direction (See alternating cuts 312 in wires 310, [53] and Figure 3E),
wherein a suspended segment is formed at the spacer region of a cut-off conductive connector (The cut 312 in each wire 310 forms two suspended segments of each wire, one suspended segment of each wire attached to each solar cell), and a length of the suspended segment is less than a distance between two adjacent conductive connectors (310) in the second direction (Figure 3E, each suspended segment has a length that is shorter than the distance between the cells where two adjacent conductive connectors are located in the second direction which reads on the limitation that the length of the suspended segment is less than a distance between two adjacent conductive connectors).
Terao additionally discloses that an end portion of the suspended segment is coated with an insulating coating (insulating shield layer 308) (Figure 3E and [45]). Terao additionally discloses that the insulating shield layer may serve to hide the ribbons when viewed from the front and covers exposed sections of the wires between each adjacent pair of the plurality of solar cells and discloses that the non-conductive shield includes a material that is substantially opaque to sufficiently cloak the wires when viewed from the front ([45]).
Terao does not explicitly disclose that the insulating coating wraps around the end portion of the suspended segment.
Ku discloses a solar cell string in Figure 5 comprising an insulating shield layer (140A-B) covering top and bottom surfaces of a spacer region (gap G) between cells (130A-B) ([31]) and filling in the spacer region (Gap G) between the solar cells ([9], [26] and [31]-[32]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Terao such that the insulating coating is located above and below the conductive connectors and fills in the spacer region such that the insulating coating wraps around the end portion of the suspended segment, as taught by Ku, in order to protect the end portion of the suspended segment and to minimize the thermal stress of the module, improve structural connection and reliability and increase the service life of the device (Ku, [34]-[35]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Terao discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terao additionally discloses that a number of the plurality of back-contact solar cells is greater than two, and the cut-off conductive connectors are different in different two adjacent spacer regions (Figure 3E and [53], more than two cells can be connected which have different cut-off connectors).
Regarding claim 5, modified Terao discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terao additionally discloses that each back-contact solar cell further includes a plurality of metal grid lines (metal seed layers 114) provided corresponding to the P-type doped layer and the N-type doped layer (108) of that back contact solar cell, the metal grid lines (114) on the P-type doped layers (108) are in ohmic contact with the P-type doped layers, the metal grid lines (114) on the N-type doped layers (108) are in ohmic contact with the N-type doped layers (Figures 1A-1B and [40], metal seed layers 114 form metal grid lines on the P-type and N-type doped layers), and the plurality of conductive connectors (110) are fixedly connected to the plurality of metal grid lines (Figures 1A-1B and [40]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Terao discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terao additionally discloses that a length of the suspended segment is less than a distance between a conductive connector (310) and a metal grid line adjacent to the conductive connector in the second direction (Figure 3E).
Regarding claim 7 and 9, modified Terao discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terao additionally discloses that at the position corresponding to the spacer region, a shield layer (308) is provided on a side of the conductive connectors facing a light-receiving surface of the back-contact solar cell (Figure 3E and [45]). Terao additionally discloses that the shield layer may serve to hide the ribbons when viewed from the front and covers exposed sections of the wires between each adjacent pair of the plurality of solar cells and discloses that the non-conductive shield includes a material that is substantially opaque to sufficiently cloak the wires when viewed from the front ([45]). Ku additionally discloses that the color of the shield layer and insulating coating corresponds to that of the back-contact solar cells ([31] and [33]-[35]).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, modified Terao discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terao additionally discloses a cell assembly, comprising several cell strings as set forth above (Figure 5 and [55], strings 500A, 500B) and a photovoltaic system, comprising the cell assembly (Figure 5 and [55]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terao (US 2016/0380120) in view of Ku et al. (US 2017/0256662), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Li et al. (US 2022/0140168).
Regarding claim 3, modified Terao discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terao does not disclose that in the second direction, a distance between two adjacent conductive connectors is 0.3mm to 1.2mm.
Li discloses a back contact solar cell string in Figure 3 comprising two adjacent conductive connectors (21, 22) ([30]), wherein the distance between two adjacent conductive connectors is 0.1mm to 20mm ([42]).
Li does not disclose the specifically claimed range of 0.3mm to 1.2mm; however, in the case 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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the distance taught by Li for the conductive connectors of modified Terao, because it would amount to nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terao (US 2016/0380120) in view of Ku et al. (US 2017/0256662), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Moslehi (US 2016/0190365).
Regarding claim 4, modified Terao discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Terao does not disclose that in the first direction, a distance between the two adjacent back-contact solar cells is 0.3mm to 1.2mm.
Moslehi discloses that a suitable distance between two adjacent back-contact solar cells in a solar cell string is 0.5 mm to 1 mm ([50]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the distance taught by Moslehi for the back-contact solar cells of modified Terao, because it would amount to nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Terao and Ku, either taken alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest "wherein an end portion of the suspended segment is coated with an insulating coating, and the insulating coating wraps around the end portion of the suspended segment," as recited in amended claim 1. Applicant argues that the insulating shield layer of Ku (140A-B) covers top and bottom surfaces of a spacer region (gap G) between cells (130A-B). However, the insulating shield layer (140A-B) does not wrap around an end portion of either of the cells (130A-B) because the insulating shield layer (140A-B) does not cover a vertical side surface of the end portion of either of the cells (130A-B).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ku discloses that the insulating shield layer (140) is “filled in the separating gap G” ([9], [26] and claim 2). When the insulating shield layer of Ku is filled in the separating gap between the cells of Terao, it covers all the surfaces of the end portion of the suspended segment of Terao and necessarily wraps around the end portion of the suspended segment since it covers all sides of the suspended segment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Terao such that the insulating coating is located above and below the conductive connectors and fills in the spacer region such that the insulating coating wraps around the end portion of the suspended segment, as taught by Ku, in order to protect the end portion of the suspended segment and to minimize the thermal stress of the module, improve structural connection and reliability and increase the service life of the device (Ku, [34]-[35]).
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 LINDSEY A BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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.
/LINDSEY A BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights