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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 08/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/28/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 1 of claim 3 appears to contain a typographical error with regard to the limitation “electrically connected is series.” For the purpose of the office action, the recitation will be treated as if it states electrically connected in series. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murali et al. (US 2017/0373211 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murali discloses a solar cell (abstract) comprising a front surface having a metallization pattern ([0034] – metallic article configured as a grid) comprising a first conductive material ([0058], first metal), a busbar ([0035] – cell-to-cell interconnect), and fingers connected to the busbar (410 in Fig. 6; it is noted that the limitation “connected” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components), the fingers oriented perpendicular to the busbar (410 in relation to 440 in Fig. 6); wires comprising a second conductive material different from the first conductive material ([0058], second metal), the wires disposed on top of the fingers (420 in Fig. 6; it is noted that the limitation “disposed on top” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components. Additionally, the limitation “on top” is dependent on the spatial orientation of the device); a ribbon comprising the second conductive material ([0058], second metal), the ribbon attached to the wires and oriented perpendicular to the wires (430 in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, Murali discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Murali further discloses the ribbon is aligned with the busbar of the metallization pattern (430 in relation to 440 in Fig. 3; it is noted that the manner in which the ribbon is aligned with the busbar is not specified).
It is further noted that the limitation “the ribbon is aligned with the busbar of the metallization pattern” is directed to the manner in which the device is made, and said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Murali discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Murali further discloses the second conductive material comprises copper ([0058], second metal).
Regarding claim 6, Murali discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Murali further discloses the ribbon comprises a metal core of the second conductive material coated in a different material than the second conductive material ([0058] discloses a third metal over the second metal).
Regarding claim 7, Murali discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Murali further discloses the metal core second conductive material is copper ([0058], second metal).
Regarding claim 8, Murali discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Murali further discloses the different material is ([0058] discloses tin).
Regarding claim 12, Murali discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Murali further discloses the solar cell comprises a second busbar parallel to the busbar (busbar 440a at the top of Fig. 8 relative to busbar 440a at the bottom of Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 13, Murali discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Murali further discloses one of the fingers connected to the busbar and another of the fingers connected to the second busbar (410 in Fig. 6; vertical elements between top and bottom 440a in Fig. 8) are connected to each other via the wires (420 in relation to 410 in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 14, Murali discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Murali further discloses the solar cell comprises a second ribbon parallel to the ribbon (ribbons 430 in Fig. 3 are parallel to each other).
Regarding claim 15, Murali discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Murali further discloses one of the wires aligned with the ribbon (420 in relation to 430 in Fig. 3; it is noted that the manner in which one of the wires is aligned with the ribbon is not specified).
It is further noted that the limitation “wherein at least one of the wires is aligned with the ribbon” is directed to the manner in which the device is made, and said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 16, Murali discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Murali further discloses all of the wires are offset from the ribbon (420 in relation to 430 in Fig. 3; it is noted that the limitation does not specify the direction of the offset).
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murali et al. (US 2017/0373211 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of He et al. (US 10,741,712).
Regarding claim 3, Murali discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. While Murali does disclose a device comprising solar cells electrically connected
in series ([0064]), Murali does not explicitly disclose the solar cells arranged in a shingled manner.
He discloses a device comprising solar cells arranged in a shingled manner (C4/L11-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrange the series connected solar cells of Murali in a shingled manner, as taught by He, because as evidenced by He, arranging solar cells in a shingled manner amounts to the use of a known configuration in the art, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when arranging the series connected solar cells of Murali in a shingled manner based on the teaching of He.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murali et al. (US 2017/0373211 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Gannon et al. (US 2013/0206221 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Murali discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Murali does disclose a connection between the ribbon (430 in Fig. 6) and
the busbar (440 in Fig. 3), and further discloses the use of solder for coupling front and back grids to front and back sides of a wafer, respectively ([0061]), Murali does not explicitly disclose the ribbon is soldered to the busbar.
Gannon discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a ribbon soldered to a busbar ([0011], [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the connection between 430 in Fig. 6 and 440 in Fig. 6 of Murali with the use of solder, as disclosed by Gannon, because as evidenced by Gannon, the use of solder to connect a ribbon to a busbar of a solar cell amounts to the use of a known component/material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the connection between 430 and 440 in Fig. 6 of Murali with solder based on the teaching of Gannon.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murali et al. (US 2017/0373211 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Willeke et al. (US 5,704,992 A).
Regarding claim 10, Murali discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Murali does disclose a connection between the wires and the fingers (410 and 420 in Fig. 6), Murali does not explicitly disclose the wires are soldered to the fingers.
Willeke discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses solderable finger metallization (C10/L25-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to connect the wires and fingers of Murali using solder because as evidenced by Willeke, the use of solderable finger metallization in a photovoltaic solar cell metallization process amounts to the use of a known method in the art, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the connection between the wires and fingers of Murali with solder based on the teaching of Willeke.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murali et al. (US 2017/0373211 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Nishida et al. (US 2008/0149161).
Regarding claim 10, Murali discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Murali does disclose a connection between the wires and the fingers (410 and 420 in Fig. 6), Murali does not explicitly disclose the wires are soldered to the fingers.
Nishida discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a wiring member directly connected through a conductive adhesive, such as a solder or a conductive resin ([0082], [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to connect the wires and fingers of Murali using solder because as evidenced by Nishida, the use of solder to connect components of the metallization of a solar cell amounts to the use of a known material/component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when using solder to connect the wires and fingers of Murali based on the teaching of Nishida.
Regarding claim 11, Murali discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Murali does disclose a connection between the wires and the fingers (410 and 420 in Fig. 6), Murali does not explicitly disclose the wires are attached to the fingers with an adhesive.
Nishida discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a wiring member directly connected through a conductive adhesive, such as a solder or a conductive resin ([0082], [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to connect the wires and fingers of Murali using a conductive adhesive because as evidenced by Nishida, the use of a conductive adhesive to connect components of the metallization of a solar cell amounts to the use of a known material/component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when using a conductive adhesive to connect the wires and fingers of Murali based on the teaching of Nishida.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
