DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action for 19/471,480, filed 10/1/2025, which is a national stage entry of PCT/CN2025/106939, filed 7/3/2025, which claims priority to Chinese applications CN202411516481.1, filed 10/28/2024, and CN202421594278.1, filed 7/5/2024.
Claims 1-16 are pending; Claims 1-12 are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments filed 7/31/2026, the objection to Claim 11 is withdrawn, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn, and the prior art rejections are withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are presented herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0080069 A1: This reference teaches a solar cell module with connector electrodes adhered to the surface with bonding adhesive (Figs. 1-5).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0284235 A1: This reference teaches a solar cell module with connector electrodes adhered to the surface with bonding adhesive (Figs. 1-4).
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 1-7, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakauchi, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0186968 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Nakauchi teaches a photovoltaic module (Figs. 1 and 12-13, paragraphs [0050]-[0054] and [0092]-[0097]).
The module of Nakauchi comprises a solar cell body 41 (Figs. 12-13, paragraphs [0092]-[0097], shown as item 1 in Fig. 1).
The solar call body 41 comprises a first (i.e. light-receiving) surface 1a (Figs. 12-13, paragraph [0092]) and a second (i.e. rear) surface arranged opposite to each other (shown in Fig. 1).
The module of Nakauchi comprises fingers 48a arranged on the first surface 1a along a first direction and extending along a second direction intersecting with the first direction (shown in the inset below, paragraph [0092]).
The module of Nakauchi comprises a connection portion arranged on the first surface 1a and coupled to the fingers 48a (indicated in the inset below).
The connection portion comprises a first connection portion, corresponding to the insulating adhesive regions 46 disposed under a single conductive tab (indicated in the inset below, paragraph [0096]).
The connection portion comprises a second connection portion, corresponding to the indicated regions where the fingers are shown to be fused in Fig. 12.
The inset of Fig. 13 below teaches that the first connection portion 46 and the second connection portion are arranged at intervals along a first direction.
The inset below teaches that an area of the first connection portion 46 (i.e. an area of one portion of item 46) is greater than an area of the second connection portion (i.e. an area of one of the fused regions of the finger electrodes).
The module of Nakauchi comprises a first bonding layer 47 (Fig. 13, paragraph [0097]).
Fig. 13 teaches that the first bonding layer 47 is arranged on a surface of the first connection portion 46 away from the solar cell body (i.e. is structurally connected to all portions of the first connection portion, including its upper-most surface). It is noted that “arranged on” does not require direct physical contact between the first bonding layer and a surface of the first connection portion 46 away from the solar cell body.
Fig. 13 teaches that the first bonding layer 47 comprises at least two first bonding strips 47 having a strip-shaped structure.
The inset below teaches that the at least two first bonding strips 47 extend along the second direction and are arranged at an interval along the first direction.
Fig. 13 teaches that the module comprises an electrical connector 2, wherein the electrical connector 2 is arranged on the first bonding layer 47 (paragraph [0097]).
The inset below teaches that the electrical connector 2 extends along the first direction and intersects with the at least two first bonding strips 47 having the strip-shaped structure.
Nakauchi teaches that the electrical connector 2 is electrically connected to the fingers 48 through the first connection portion 46 and the first bonding layer 47 (paragraph [0097]).
PNG
media_image1.png
595
1188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 2, the inset of Fig. 13 under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that, along the first direction, the first connection portion 46 is close to an edge of the solar cell body (i.e. the bottom edge, as indicated in the inset below) and wherein the second connection portion is further away from the edge of the solar cell body than the first connection portion 46 is.
In reference to Claim 3, it is noted that the “second connection portion” can be interpreted as only the portion of the region in which the conductive fingers are fused that has the same width as the width of the first connection portions/items 46. Claims 1 and 3 do not limit the structure of the “second connection portion” to include any structural features that preclude this interpretation.
Therefore, the inset of Fig. 13 under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that, along the second direction, a width of the first connection portion is equal to a width of the second connection portion.
The inset of Fig. 13 under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that, along the first direction, a length of the first connection portion 46 is greater than a length of the second connection portion.
In reference to Claim 4, Nakauchi teaches that the photovoltaic module further comprises a second bonding layer, corresponding to one of the other items 47 shown in Fig. 13.
Fig. 13 teaches that the second bonding layer 47 is arranged on a surface of the second connection portion (which is indicated in the inset of Fig. 12 above) away from the solar cell body.
Fig. 13 teaches that the second bonding layer 47 comprises a second bonding strip 47 having a strip-shaped structure.
The inset of Fig. 13 above teaches that the second bonding strip 47 extends along the second direction and intersects with the electrical connector 2.
Nakauchi teaches that the electrical connector 2 is electrically connected to the second connection portion through the second bonding layer 47 (paragraph [0097]).
In reference to Claim 5, Fig. 13 teaches that a size of the second bonding strip 47 is the same as a size of a first bonding strip 47 of the at least two first bonding strips, i.e. that all items 47 are the same size.
In reference to Claim 6, the inset of Fig. 13 above teaches that the at least two first bonding strips 47 are spaced apart from each other on the first connection portion.
In reference to Claim 7, Fig. 13 teaches that the at least two first bonding strips 47 extend along the second direction (i.e. have a dimension extending in the second direction) and have a rectangle-like structure.
In reference to Claim 9, Fig. 13 teaches that the first bonding layer further comprises a third bonding strip, corresponding to one of the other items 47 shown in Fig. 13.
Fig. 13 teaches that the third bonding strip 47 extends along the first direction (i.e. has a dimension that extends in the first direction).
Fig. 13 teaches that the third bonding strip 47 is located on a central axis of the first connection portion (i.e. aligned with a central axis of the first connection portion, as indicated in the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above), and wherein the electrical connector 2 covers the third bonding strip 47.
In reference to Claim 11, the inset of Fig. 13 under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that, along the second direction, a length of a first bonding strip 47 of the at least two first bonding strips 47 is smaller than a length of the second connection portion.
In reference to Claim 12, while Nakauchi explicitly teaches that the “first surface” as applied in the rejection of Claim 1 is the light-receiving surface of the solar cell, it is the Examiner’s position that all of the structures of Claim 1 are also “on,” i.e. indirectly on the back surface of the solar cell.
Alternatively, the solar cell of Nakauchi can be viewed from a position in which surface 1a is disposed on the back surface of the solar cell (i.e. a position in which the solar cell of Nakauchi is flipped over, relative to its position in Fig. 1.
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that Nakauchi teaches that the first surface is a back surface of the solar cell body.
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.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakauchi, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0186968 A1), in view of Jang, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0074395 A1).
In reference to Claim 8, Nakauchi does not teach that the at least two bonding strips 47 have the polygonal structure of Claim 8. Instead, as shown in Fig. 13, these bonding strips are shown to be rectangular.
To solve the same problem of providing bonding structures between tab electrodes and surface electrodes of a solar cell, Jang teaches that suitable shapes of bonding structures include rectangular shapes (as in Fig. 11 of Jang) and multi-sided shapes (Fig. 14A, paragraphs [0141]-[0143]).
Jang further teaches that forming connecting structures between solar cell surfaces and connector electrodes to have the multi-sided shape shown in Fig. 14a provides the benefit of increasing the connection strength and the conductivity of the connecting structure (paragraph [0143]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to form the shapes of the bonding structures 47 (and underlying “second connection portions”) of Nakauchi to have the shape shown in Fig. 14A of Jang, because Jang teaches that forming connecting structures between solar cell surfaces and connector electrodes to have the multi-sided shape shown in Fig. 14a provides the benefit of increasing the connection strength and the conductivity of the connecting structure (paragraph [0143]).
Forming the shapes of the bonding structures 47 and underlying “second connection portions” of Nakauchi to have the shape shown in Fig. 14A of Jang teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein the at least two bonding strips have a polygonal structure, wherein a number of edges of the polygonal structure is 4N, N≥2.
In reference to Claim 10, Nakauchi does not teach that the bonding layer has any of the shapes recited in Claim 10. Instead, as shown in Fig. 13, these bonding strips are shown to be rectangular.
To solve the same problem of providing bonding structures between tab electrodes and surface electrodes of a solar cell, Jang teaches that suitable shapes of bonding structures include rectangular shapes (as in Fig. 11 of Jang) and multi-sided shapes (Fig. 14A, paragraphs [0141]-[0143]).
Jang further teaches that forming connecting structures between solar cell surfaces and connector electrodes to have the multi-sided shape shown in Fig. 14a provides the benefit of increasing the connection strength and the conductivity of the connecting structure (paragraph [0143]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to form the shapes of the bonding structures 47 (and underlying “second connection portions”) of Nakauchi to have the shape shown in Fig. 14A of Jang, because Jang teaches that forming connecting structures between solar cell surfaces and connector electrodes to have the multi-sided shape shown in Fig. 14a provides the benefit of increasing the connection strength and the conductivity of the connecting structure (paragraph [0143]).
Forming the shapes of the bonding structures 47 and underlying “second connection portions” of Nakauchi to have the shape shown in Fig. 14A of Jang teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the first bonding layer has a shape of at least one of:
PNG
media_image2.png
30
136
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
since Fig. 14A of Jang teaches that the electrode pad outline comprises regions having all of the shapes of Claim 10.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections and objection presented in the non-final office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
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 SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
