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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (US 2019/0221692)
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a solar cell module (fig. 3), comprising:
a plurality of solar cells (500), each of the plurality of solar cells including a perovskite layer ([0038] and [0029-0032]);
an interconnector (710) configured to electrically connect the plurality of solar cells (500/600, see fig. 3); and
an electro-conductive adhesive layer (e.g. Ag paste, [0038]) is disposed between the interconnector (710) and at least one of the plurality of solar cells ([0038]).
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamoto (JP 2005-252062, see machine translation) in view of Wang (US 2019/0221692).
Regarding claim 1, Okamoto discloses a solar cell module (figs. 1-3 of the original document, [0053] of the translation) comprising:
a plurality of solar cells (1);
an interconnector (see tab 71) configured to electrically connect the plurality of solar cells (1); and
an electro-conductive adhesive layer (see first adhesive 31/32 or second adhesive 61/62) disposed between the interconnector (71) and at least one of the plurality of solar cells (1, see figs. 2-3).
Okamoto does not teach each of the solar cells (1) including a perovskite layer.
Wang discloses perovskite solar cells would provide the advantages of high efficiencies, low temperature processing and flexibility (see [0009], [0013] and [0030-0031]), each perovskite solar cell comprises a perovskite layer (530, see fig. 2, [0029-0032]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell module of Okamoto by using perovskite solar cells each including a perovskite layer as taught by Wang, because Wang teaches perovskite solar cells would provide the advantages of high efficiencies, low temperature processing and flexibility.
Regarding claim 2, modified Okamoto discloses a solar cell module as in claim 1 above, wherein Okamoto teaches each of the plurality of solar cells (1) further includes a first electrode (21), and a second electrode (22); the interconnector (71) is configured to electrically connect the first electrode (21) of a first solar cell (or left solar cell 1) among the plurality of solar cells (1) and the second electrode (22) of a second solar cell (or right solar cell 1) among the plurality of solar cells, wherein the first and second solar cells are disposed adjacent to each other (see figs. 2-3), the electro-conductive adhesive layer (31 or 61) is disposed between the interconnector (1) and each of the first electrode (21) of the first solar cell (or left solar cell 1) and the second electrode (22) of the second solar cell (or right solar cell 1, see figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 3, modified Okamoto discloses a solar cell module as in claim 2 above, wherein Okamoto teaches the first electrode (21) and the second electrode (22) are busbar electrodes (see [0053] of the translation), and the interconnector (71) extends along the busbar electrodes (21 and 22, see figs. 1-3 of the original document).
Regarding claim 4, modified Okamoto discloses a solar cell module as in claim 3 above, wherein Okamoto discloses the electro-conductive adhesive layer (31/32 or 61/62) is disposed only between the interconnector (71) and each of the busbar electrodes (21 or 22, see figs. 1-3 of the original document).
Regarding claim 5, modified Okamoto discloses a solar cell module according to claim 3, wherein Okamoto teaches the electro-conductive adhesive layer (or first adhesive 31/32 or second adhesive 61/62) is a polymer based electro-conductive adhesive layer (see [0041] of the translation).
Regarding claim 6, modified Okamoto discloses a solar cell module as in claim 5 above, wherein Okamoto teaches the polymer based electro-conductive adhesive layer (or first adhesive 31/32) includes a plurality of polymer based electro-conductive adhesives spaced from each other (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, modified Okamoto discloses a solar cell module as in claim 6 above, wherein Okamoto shows a vacant space is defined between each of the busbar electrodes (21/22) and the interconnector (71), and between adjacent polymer based electro-conductive adhesives (31/32, see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, modified Okamoto discloses a solar cell module as in claim 6 above, wherein Okamoto teaches forming the plurality of polymer based electro-conductive adhesives (or the island shape adhesive 31/32) to the desired dimension (see [0046] of the translation).
Modified Okamoto does not explicitly disclose a total length of the plurality of polymer based electro-conductive adhesives accounts for 1 to 25% of a length of the interconnector.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the plurality of polymer based electro-conductive adhesives (island shaped adhesive 31/32) to have a total length accounting for 1 to 25% of a length of the plurality of the interconnector, because Okamoto teaches such formation is a matter of desired choice. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior device. The skilled artisan would have been able to select an appropriate dimension of the plurality of polymer based electro-conductive adhesives based on the desired properties of the solar cell module.
Regarding claim 9, modified Okamoto discloses a solar cell module as in claim 6 above, wherein Okamoto teaches the electro-conductive adhesive layer (31/32) is made of eutectic mixture (or solder, see [0037] of the translation), conductive paste (see [0041] of the translation), or a combination of conductive paste and eutectic mixture (or solder, see [0043]).
Okamoto does not explicitly show a eutectic mixture disposed between adjacent polymer based electro-conductive adhesives.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell module in fig. 3 of Okamoto by incorporating a eutectic mixture (or solder) into in the vacant space between the adjacent polymer based electro-conductive adhesives to form a combination of conductive paste (or polymer based electro-conductive adhesives) and eutectic mixture (or solder), because Okamoto explicitly suggest the electro-conductive adhesive layer (or adhesive 31/32) is formed of a combination of polymer based electro-conductive adhesive (or conductive paste) and eutectic mixture (or solder).
Regarding claims 10-11, modified Okamoto discloses a solar cell module as in claim 9 above, wherein Okamoto discloses the eutectic mixture including an inter-metallic compound such as Sn-Ag eutectic solder (see [0027] of the translation).
Regarding claim 12, modified Okamoto discloses a solar cell module as in claim 11 above, wherein Okamoto teaches the interconnector (or tab 71) includes a base (or copper foil) and a coating layer made of Sn and Pb (see [0031] of the translation).
Regarding claims 13-15, modified Okamoto discloses a solar cell module as in claim 1 above, wherein Okamoto discloses the electro-conductive adhesive layer (31/32) is made of conductive paste of metal fillers such as silver, gold and copper mixed into a resin material (see [0041] and [0046]). It is noted that fillers mixed into a resin material are understood as fillers being dispersed in the polymer (or resin material). Okamoto also teaches a conductive paste includes metallic particles (or silver powder) and a polymer such as epoxy resin and urethane resin (see [0024] and [0026]) of the translation).
Alternatively, claim(s) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Okamoto (JP 2005-252062, see machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hishida et al. (US 2008/0121265).
Regarding claims 13-15, modified Okamoto discloses a solar cell module as in claim 1 above, wherein Okamoto discloses the electro-conductive adhesive layer (e.g. first adhesive 31/32 or second adhesive 61/62) is made of conductive paste of metal fillers such as silver, gold and copper mixed into a resin material (see [0041] and [0046]). Okamoto also teaches a conductive paste includes metallic particles (or silver powder) and a polymer such as epoxy resin and urethane resin (see [0024] and [0026]) of the translation).
Okamoto does not explicitly describe the conductive paste used for the electro-conductive adhesive layer (31/32 or 61/62) in paragraphs [0041] and [0046] includes metallic particles dispersed in the polymer.
Hishida et al. discloses an electro-conductive adhesive (13, fig. 4) adhering an interconnector (2a) and a bus bar (11a) including metallic particles (32) dispersed in a polymer (see resin 31, see fig. 4), wherein the metallic particles include silver, copper, aluminum (see [0043]) and the polymer includes epoxy based polymer, polyurethane-based polymer, silicon-based polymer, polyimide-based, phenol-based polymer (see [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the conductive paste including metallic particles dispersed in a polymer as taught by Hishida et al.; because Okamoto explicitly suggests using conductive paste of conductive fillers in a polymer, and Hishida et al. teaches such conductive paste would enhance the electrical conductivity and provide excellent resistance to humidity and maintain reliability (see [0045] of Hishida et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights