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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 25-31 and 34-36 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 1-9 have been amended.
Claim(s) 10, 12-24 and 32-33 have been canceled.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For proper form, it is suggested that the limitation “wherein a material of the busbar is same as a material of the bonding pad” be amended to read “wherein a material of the busbar is the same as a material of the bonding pad.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 31 is 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.
Regarding claim 31
The limitation “wherein a side of the bonding pad opposite to the diode is provided with a limiting protrusion” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 31 further requires that the bonding pad is soldered to a lead of the diode, that the lead is disposed between the limiting protrusion and the bottom of the box body, and that the limiting protrusion is configured to limit the lead. Therefore, the limiting protrusion would have to be on a side of the bonding pad adjacent to the diode so that it can engage and limit the lead. Such arrangement, where the limiting protrusion is on a side of the bonding pad opposite the diode, is inconsistent with the remaining limitations of the instant claim. Moreover, the instant specification and drawings depict the limiting protrusion (12) is positioned on the side of the bonding pad (10) adjacent to the diode (40), rather than on the side opposite the diode. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim. This renders the claim unclear and therefore indefinite.
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN115692515A, HU et al. (hereinafter “Hu”).
Regarding claims 1-3
Hu teaches a photovoltaic module (10) [Fig. 1 and para. 0032], comprising:
a junction box (160), comprising a bonding pad (163) [Figs. 3-4, para. 0032]; and
a busbar (111), one end of the busbar (111) is attached to a surface of the bonding pad (163) and soldered to the bonding pad through at least one soldering joint (corresponding to weld seams 170) [Figs. 4 and 6, para. 0032], wherein:
each soldering joint of the at least one soldering joint (170) penetrates through one end of the busbar (111) and extends into the bonding pad (163) (“The busbar 111 and the pad 163 at the weld seams 170 are formed into an integral structure by laser welding. The extension depth of the weld seams 170 within the pad 163 is within 80% of the thickness of the pad 163.”) [Figs. 4 and 6, paras. 0032 and 0048].
Regarding the limitations “an extension depth of the soldering joint in the bonding pad is x, and a length of the soldering joint is y, where y ≥ -5x+4.5” and “wherein “y ≤ -5x+5.5,” Hu discloses the soldering pad (170) having an extension depth x in the bonding pad (163) [Figs. 4 and 6, paras. 0011, 0041 and 0063-0064]. Hu further teaches the length y of the soldering joint (170) being greater than or equal to 3 mm and less than or equal to 5 mm [para. 0063].
Hu does not disclose the expressions “y ≥ -5x+4.5” and “y ≤ -5x+5.5.” Hu is further silent to the extension depth x satisfying the expression x > 0.2 mm.
However, the depth of the soldering joint in the bonding pad is recognized as a result effective variable by Hu.
Hu discloses that if the extension depth of the soldering joint (170) is too small, it will cause poor contact between the busbar (111) and the bonding pad (163). When the soldering joint (170) is only formed within the busbar (111) the product yield of the photovoltaic module is low. Furthermore, when the extension depth of the soldering joint (170) within the bonding pad (163) exceeds 80% of the thickness of the bonding pad (163), the defect rate of the photovoltaic module is relatively high [paras. 0011, 0038 and 0041].
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the extension depth of the soldering joint in the bonding pad (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired connection reliability of the junction box in the photovoltaic module. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 4
Hu teaches the photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein a quantity of the at least one soldering joint is greater than or equal to 3 and less than or equal to 8 (the number of welds 170 can be two, three, four, or five) [paras. 0063 and 0066; see also Fig. 6].
Regarding claim 5
Hu teaches the photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein y ≥ 1.5 mm (the length is in a range of 3-5mm) [para. 0064].
Regarding claim 6
Hu teaches the photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein a plurality of soldering joints (170) are provided (paras. 0054, 0059, 0063; see also Fig. 6 showing 4 soldering joints 170), the plurality of soldering joints (170) are sequentially arranged along a width direction of the busbar (111), and a gap exists between two adjacent soldering joints (170) [Figs. 4 and 6, paras. 0067-0069].
Hu teaches the width of the soldering joint (170) being in a range of 0.35 mm to 0.45 mm [para. 0063] and the gap that exists between two adjacent soldering joints being greater than or equal to 0.4 mm and less than or equal to 0.6 mm [paras.0 67-0068].
Accordingly, Hu does not teach the limitations “a width of the soldering joint is greater than or equal to 0.7 mm and less than or equal to 0.9 mm” and “the gap is greater than or equal to 0.9 mm and less than or equal to 1.1 mm.”
However, Hu recognizes said parameters as result-effective variables.
Regarding the width of the soldering joint (170), Hu teaches that said parameter is controlled such that sufficient connection strength can be ensured at the interface between the busbar (111) and the pad (163), thereby ensuring the reliability of the connection between the busbar (111) and the pad (163) [paras. 0051-0052, 0054 and 0058].
Regarding the gap between adjacent soldering joints, Hu teaches controlling said parameter such that interference between the joints is avoided and to achieve an improved fixing effect in the width direction of the busbar (111) [para. 0069].
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the width of the soldering joint and the gap between adjacent ones (result-effective variables), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameters through routine experimentation in order to avoid interference between adjacent soldering joints while achieving the desired fixing effect and connection reliability between the busbar and the bonding pad [paras. 0051-0052, 0054, 0058 and 0069]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 7
Hu teaches the photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein an end surface of the bonding pad (163) close to the busbar (111) has a planar structure [Figs. 4-8], and a side surface of the busbar (111) attached to the bonding pad (163) has a planar structure [Figs. 4-8].
Regarding claim 8
Hu teaches the photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein a material of the busbar (111) is same as a material of the bonding pad (163) [para. 0031].
Regarding claim 9
Hu teaches the photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein the material of the busbar (111) and the material of the bonding pad (163) is copper [para. 0031].
Claim(s) 25, 26, 34 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of CN 207723729 U, Zheng et al. (hereinafter “Zheng”).
Regarding claim 25
Hu teaches a photovoltaic module (10) [Fig. 1 and para. 0032], comprising:
comprising a junction box (160) and a busbar (111) [Figs. 3-4, para. 0032], the junction box (160) comprising a bonding pad (163) and a diode (162) [Figs. 3-4, para. 0032], wherein the bonding pad (163) and the diode (162) are disposed in parallel along a first direction [Figs. 3-6, para. 0032];
the busbar (111) and the bonding pad (163) are soldered together by laser soldering [para. 0010], a plurality of soldering joints (170) are formed by the laser soldering [Figs. 4 and 6, paras. 0010, 0032, 0037-0038, 0063 and 0066], and the plurality of soldering joints (170) penetrate through the busbar (111) and extend into the bonding pad (163) (“The busbar 111 and the pad 163 at the weld seams 170 are formed into an integral structure by laser welding. The extension depth of the weld seams 170 within the pad 163 is within 80% of the thickness of the pad 163.”) [paras. 0032 and 0048];
an edge of the soldering joint (170) closest to the diode (162) along the first direction is a first edge, and an edge of the diode (162) closest to the soldering joint (170) along the first direction is a second edge [see annotated Fig. 4 below]; and
a safe distance is reserved between the first edge and the second edge [see annotated Fig. 4 below], the safe distance is a linear distance between the first edge and the second edge in the first direction [see annotated Fig. 4 below].
PNG
media_image1.png
378
487
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
381
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
Hu does not teach the safe distance is greater than or equal to 3 mm.
Zheng teaches that, in a junction box for photovoltaic modules, solder from soldering joints during welding can flow into the diode to cause short circuit [paras. 0008 and 0032].
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the safe distance between the first edge and the second edge (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired welding/soldering efficiency and structural reliability. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 26
Modified Hu teaches the photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein the bonding pad (163) and/or the busbar (111) has a sheet structure and has a flat soldering surface [Hu, Figs. 4-8].
Regarding claim 27
Modified Hu teaches the photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein the plurality of soldering joints (170) form a soldering pattern [Hu, Figs. 4 and 6].
Modified Hu is silent to a minimum distance between an edge of the soldering pattern and an edge of the bonding pad is greater than or equal to 1.5 mm.
However, in the absence of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired connection strength between the bus bar and the pad [Hu, para. 0046]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 28
Modified Hu teaches the photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein the junction box (160) further comprises a box body (corresponding to housing 161), the box body comprises a box wall surrounding the bonding pad (163) [Figs. 4 and 6, para. 0032].
Modified Hu is silent to a minimum distance between the soldering pattern and the box wall is greater than or equal to 2.5 mm.
However, in the absence of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired connection strength between the bus bar and the pad while preventing a short circuit [Hu, para. 0046; Zheng, paras. 0008 and 0032]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 34 Hu teaches the photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein a length of the soldering joints (170) is greater than or equal to 3 mm (the length is in a range of 3-5mm) [para. 0064].
Hu does not teach a distance between two adjacent soldering joints is greater than or equal to 0.7 mm. Instead, Hu teaches a distance of greater than or equal to 0.4 mm and less than or equal to 0.6 mm between soldering joints (170) [paras.0 67-0068].
However, the distance between adjacent soldering joints is recognized as a result effective variable by Hu. Hu teaches controlling said parameter such that interference between the joints is avoided and to achieve an improved fixing effect in the width direction of the busbar (111) [para. 0069].
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the width of the soldering joint and the gap between adjacent ones (result-effective variables), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameters through routine experimentation in order to avoid interference between adjacent soldering joints while achieving the desired fixing effect and connection reliability between the busbar and the bonding pad [paras. 0051-0052, 0054, 0058 and 0069]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 36
Hu is silent to a depth of the soldering joint extending into the bonding pad being greater than or equal to 0.2 mm.
However, the depth of the soldering joint in the bonding pad is recognized as a result effective variable by Hu.
Hu discloses that if the extension depth of the soldering joint (170) is too small, it will cause poor contact between the busbar (111) and the bonding pad (163). When the soldering joint (170) is only formed within the busbar (111) the product yield of the photovoltaic module is low. Furthermore, when the extension depth of the soldering joint (170) within the bonding pad (163) exceeds 80% of the thickness of the bonding pad (163), the defect rate of the photovoltaic module is relatively high [paras. 0011, 0038 and 0041].
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the extension depth of the soldering joint in the bonding pad (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired connection reliability of the junction box in the photovoltaic module. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu as applied to claims 1-9 above, and further in view of CN 206820719 U, Mao et al. (hereinafter “Mao”).
Regarding claim 11
Hu teaches the photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein a width of the busbar (111) is greater than or equal to 5 mm (4mm to 7 mm) [para. 0064].
Hu is silent to the thickness of the busbar is greater than or equal to 0.2 mm.
Mao teaches a junction box for a photovoltaic module [Abstract], the junction box comprising a bus bar having a thickness in a range of 0.3-6 mm [last paragraph of Page 3 to Page 4].
Hu and Mao are analogous inventions in the field of junction boxes for photovoltaic modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the bus bar of Hu to comprise a thickness of 0.3-6mm as disclosed in Mao for the purpose of providing a bus bar with a suitable thickness thereby improving the welding/soldering part and the stability and service life of the photovoltaic module [Mao, Page 4].
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Zheng as applied to claims 25, 26, 34 and 36 above, and further in view of Mao.
Regarding claim 35
Hu teaches the photovoltaic module as set forth above, wherein a width of the busbar (111) is greater than or equal to 5 mm (4mm to 7 mm) [para. 0064].
Hu is silent to the thickness of the busbar is greater than or equal to 0.2 mm.
Mao teaches a junction box for a photovoltaic module [Abstract], the junction box comprising a bus bar having a thickness in a range of 0.3-6 mm [last paragraph of Page 3 to Page 4].
Hu and Mao are analogous inventions in the field of junction boxes for photovoltaic modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the bus bar of Hu to comprise a thickness of 0.3-6mm as disclosed in Mao for the purpose of providing a bus bar with a suitable thickness thereby improving the welding/soldering part and the stability and service life of the photovoltaic module [Mao, Page 4].
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) [MPEP 2144.05].
Claim(s) 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Zheng as applied to claims 25, 26, 34 and 36 above, and further in view of US 11908971 B1, Guo et al.
Regarding claim 29
Hu does not teach an end of the bonding pad far away from the diode is provided with a locating hole, a bottom of the box body is provided with a locating column, and the locating column is inserted through the locating hole.
Guo discloses a photovoltaic module comprising a junction box 120, wherein an end of a bonding pad (121) far away from a diode (122) is provided with a locating hole (corresponding to second soldering seams 102) [Figs. 1 and 3-4, Col. 4, lines 15-25 and Col. 6, lines 1-22], a bottom of the box body is providing with a locating column (corresponding to solder material within solder seams 102), the locating column (i.e., solder material) is inserted through the locating hole (seams 102) [Figs. 1 and 3-4, Col. 4, lines 15-25 and Col. 6, lines 1-22].
Hu and Guo are analogous inventions in the field of junction boxes for photovoltaic modules. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the photovoltaic module of Hu such that an end of the bonding pad far away from the diode is provided with a locating hole, a bottom of the box body is provided with a locating column, and the locating column is inserted through the locating hole, as disclosed in Guo, for the purpose of improving the positioning od the bus bar and manufacturing efficiency of the module [Col. 9, lines 57-61].
Regarding claim 30 Modified Hu teaches the photovoltaic module as set forth above.
Modified Hu is silent to a minimum distance between the soldering pattern (170) and the locating column (102) is greater than or equal to 1 mm (see Hu, Figs. 4 and 6; Guo, Figs. 3-4).
However, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the minimum distance between the soldering pattern and the locating column (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired positioning of the plate thereby improving the connection reliability of the junction box and the manufacturing efficiency of the photovoltaic module [Guo, Col. 8, lines 14-36]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 111628719 A, Ding et al. teaches a junction box for a photovoltaic component comprising a box body and a terminal plate set in the box body, wherein the box body is provided with a first through hole for limiting the leading-out wire, the terminal plate is located at one side of the first through hole and has a welding area and a rib structure, and a bead structure defines a solder flow area in the weld area [see Abstract].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - 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, 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights