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 species D in the reply filed on 06/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claim(s) 21, 23, 25-26, 37, 39, 40, 44-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by CN 215266318, hereinafter as ‘318.
Regarding claim 21, ‘318 teaches metal grid lines for solar cell comprising:
a grid line 1 which is considered to be metal layer comprising copper (Cu) ( fig 1 2 abstract);
a silver contact layer 4 (the silver contact layer is formed from a paste comprising a glass frit and silver particles and then the paste is fired through the passivation layer [para 27 fig 1-2] which the same process is used in the instant application, thus it is considered that a silver contact layer 4 comprising a silver sublayer and a glass frit sublayer, wherein the silver sublayer is on the glass frit sublayer ; and
a solderable layer (tin powder) between, and contacting, the metal layer and the silver contact layer (the tin powder is melted to connect the copper powder and silver contact layer [para 27]; and
wherein the glass frit sublayer of the conductive multilayer stack contacts at least a portion of a silicon substrate 1, contacts at least a portion of an at least one passivation layer 2 on the silicon substrate 1 [fig 1-2 para 27].
Regarding claim 23, ‘318 teaches the grid line has a width from 30 µm to 100 µm [para 31]
Regarding claim 25, ‘318 teaches the grid line consisting essentially of copper [para 31].
Regarding claim 26, ‘318 teaches the glass frit sublayer penetrates through the at least one passivation layer [fig 1-2] (the silver paste is fired to penetrate through the passivation layer 2]
Regarding claim 37, ‘318 teaches the solderable layer is a solder layer comprising a solder material (tin) [para 27].
Regarding claim 39, ‘318 teaches the silver contact layer4 comprising silver contact pads [fig 1-2]
Regarding claim 40, ‘318 teaches the silver contact layer 4 comprising a discontinuous line of silver contact pads [fig 1-2]
Regarding claim 44, ‘318 teaches the silicon substrate and at least one passivation layer are the silicon substrate and the at least one passivation layer of a solar cell (abstract)
Regarding claim 45, ‘318 teaches A solar cell comprising at least two grid lines having two or more conductive multilayer stacks [fig 1-2 abstract]
Regarding claim 46, ‘318 teaches the at least two grid lines are a fine grid line [fig 1-2].
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.
Claim(s) 22, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 215266318 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Basol (PG Pub 20090159119).
Regarding claim 22, ‘318 teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but ‘318 does not teach thickness of the metal layer.
Basol teaches a solar cell comprising finger line which is considered to be the metal layer where the thickness of the finger being 5-20 micron [para 37] which is within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the thickness of the metal layer of ‘318 to be the same of Basol since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 27, ‘318 teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but ‘318 does not teach roughness of the metal layer.
Basol teaches a solar cell comprising finger line which is considered to be the metal layer where surfaces roughness of the finger being 1-100 micron [para 37] which is overlapped the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the roughness of the metal layer of ‘318 to be the same of Basol since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variables involves only routine skill in the art. In re boesch, 617 F.2d272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 215266318 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of US20140102531, hereinafter as ‘531.
Regarding claim 24, ‘318 teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but ‘318 does not teach thickness of the substrate
‘531teaches a solar cell comprising substrate having thickness of 50-200 micron [para 125].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the thickness of the substrate of ‘318 to be the same of ‘531since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). • According to MPEP 2144.05, 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).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 215266318 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of TW I737714, hereinafter as ‘714.
Regarding claim 28, ‘318 teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, ‘318 does not teach the metal layer being laser cut.
‘714 teaches a solar array having finger being laser cut (mode for invention- para 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have metal layer of ‘318 to be laser cut as taught by ‘714 since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Claim(s) 28-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 215266318 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of WO 2010101116, hereinafter as ‘116.
Regarding claim 28, ‘318 teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, ‘318 does not teach the metal layer being laser cut.
‘116 teaches a solar array having conductive layer being laser cut (description section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have metal layer of ‘318 to be laser cut as taught by ‘116 for minimizing the damage of the metal layer (description section) and since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Regarding claim 29, since modified ‘318 teaches the metal layer being laser cut as set forth above,, but modified ‘318 does not teach burr roughness.
‘116 teaches burr roughness being controlled or suppress for better forming metal layer (description).
The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art."[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP§ 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the burr roughness of metal layer of modified ‘318 to arrive the claim range for minimizing damage of metal layer.
Regarding claim 30, since modified ‘318 teaches the metal layer having claimed average roughness as in claim 27 and being laser cut, it is considered that the metal layer has an in plane edge roughness as claimed.
Regarding claim 31, since modified ‘318 teaches the metal layer being laser cut and claimed average roughness as set forth above, but modified ‘318 does not teach burr roughness.
‘116 teaches burr being controlled or suppress for better forming metal layer (description).
The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art."[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP§ 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the burr mean height of metal layer of modified ‘318 to arrive the claim range for minimizing damage of metal layer.
Regarding claim 32, since modified ‘318 teaches the metal layer being laser cut and claimed average roughness as set forth above, but modified ‘318 does not teach dross mean heigh.
During the laser cut, the dross roughness is needed to adjusted to be minimized for preventing the defect of the metal layer or electrical resistance.
The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art."[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP§ 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the dross mean height metal layer of modified ‘318 to arrive the claim range for minimizing the defect of the metal layer or electrical resistance.
Regarding claim 33, since modified ‘318 teaches the metal layer being laser cut and claimed average roughness as set forth above, but modified ‘318 does not teach dross roughness.
During the laser cut, the dross roughness is needed to adjusted to be minimized for preventing the defect of the metal layer or electrical resistance.
The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art."[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP§ 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the dross roughness metal layer of modified ‘318 to arrive the claim range for minimizing the defect of the metal layer or electrical resistance.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 215266318 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of WO 2012173203, hereinafter as ‘203,
Regarding claim 34, ‘318 teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but ‘318 does not teach the solder having claimed thickness.
‘303 teaches a solar cell comprising solder having thickness of 5 to 40 micron [description section].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have thickness of the solder of ‘318 to be the same of ‘203since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variables involves only routine skill in the art. In re boesch, 617 F.2d272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 35, 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 215266318 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of WO 2017135619, hereinafter as ‘619.
Regarding claimed 35, modified ‘318 teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but modified ‘318 does not teach the silver sublayer having claimed thickness.
‘619 teaches a solar cell comprising silver paste using silver sublayer coated glass frit layer (tittle) where the thickness of the silver sublayer or coating is controlled for improving cell’s efficiency (silver sublayer is thin, it would cause the glass frit leaking outside, the silver sublayer is thick, it would cause difficulty in improving the sintering properties (description section).
The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art."[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP§ 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust thickness of the silver sublayer of ‘318 to arrive the claim range for improving cell’s efficiency.
Regarding claim 36, modified ‘318 teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but modified ‘318 does not teach the silver sublayer having claimed thickness.
‘619 teaches a solar cell comprising silver paste using silver sublayer coated glass frit layer (tittle) where the thickness of the silver sublayer or coating is controlled for improving cell’s efficiency and the thickness of the silver subslayer would effect the thickness of the glass frit sublayer (silver sublayer is thin, it would cause the glass frit leaking outside, the silver sublayer is thick, it would cause difficulty in improving the sintering properties (description section).
The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art."[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP§ 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust thickness of the silver sublayer of ‘318 such that it would lead the glass frit sublayer to arrive the claim range for improving cell’s efficiency.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 215266318 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of US20140069491, hereinafter as ‘491.
Regarding claim 38, ‘318 teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but ‘318 does not teach the solder being SAC.
‘491 teaches a solar system comprising solder being made of SAC [para 19].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the solder of ‘318 to be made of SAC since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Claim(s) 41-43, 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 215266318 as applied to claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 41, ‘316 teaches the silver contact pads having length, width and thickness, but ‘316 does not teach the silver contact pads having claimed length.
As the amount of electrical resistance and the amount of light transmitted into the cell are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said length of the silver contact pads, with said electrical resistance and light transmittance decreasing as length of the silver contact pads is decreased, the length of the silver contact pads would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed length of the silver contact pad cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the length of the silver contact pads in the apparatus of ‘318 to obtain the desired balance between the level of electrical resistance and the amount of light to be transmitted to the cell (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 42, ‘316 teaches the silver contact pads having length, width and thickness, but ‘316 does not teach the silver contact pads having claimed thickness.
As the amount of electrical resistance and the amount of light transmitted into the cell are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said thickness of the silver contact pads, with said electrical resistance and light transmittance decreasing as thickness of the silver contact pads is decreased, the thickness of the silver contact pads would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the thickness of the silver contact pad cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the silver contact pads in the apparatus of ‘318 to obtain the desired balance between the level of electrical resistance and the amount of light to be transmitted to the cell (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 43, ‘316 teaches the silver contact pads being consecutive silver contact pads in the discontinuous line, and a first silver contact pad of the silver contact pads is separated from a second silver contact pad of the silver contact pads [fig 1 2], but ‘316 does not teach the distance between two silver contact pads.
As the amount of electrical resistance and the amount of light transmitted into the cell are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said distance between two the silver contact pads, with said electrical resistance and light transmittance decreasing as distance of two silver contact pads is decreased, the distance of two silver contact pads would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the distance of two silver contact pads cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the distance of two silver contact pads in the apparatus of ‘318 to obtain the desired balance between the level of electrical resistance and the amount of light to be transmitted to the cell (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 47, ‘318 teaches silver contact pad of a first conductive multilayer stack of the two or more conductive multilayer stacks is separated from a silver contact pad of a second conductive multilayer stack of the two or more conductive multilayer stacks [fig 1-2], ‘318 does not teach the distance between two silver contact pads.
As the amount of electrical resistance and the amount of light transmitted into the cell are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said distance between two the silver contact pads, with said electrical resistance and light transmittance decreasing as distance of two silver contact pads is decreased, the distance of two silver contact pads would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the distance of two silver contact pads cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the distance of two silver contact pads in the apparatus of ‘318 to obtain the desired balance between the level of electrical resistance and the amount of light to be transmitted to the cell (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights