www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`
`15/986,179
`
`05/22/2018
`
`Takeshi NiShiWSLki
`
`P180249U500
`
`7754
`
`38834
`
`759°
`
`02/15/2019
`
`WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
`
`8500 Leesburg Pike
`SUITE 7500
`
`TRINH‘ THANH TRUC
`
`1726
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`02/15/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patentmail@ whda.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Off/09 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/986,179
`Examiner
`THAN H-TRUC TRINH
`
`Applicant(s)
`Nishiwaki et al.
`Art Unit
`1726
`
`AIA Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 1/22/2019.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`Claim(s) § is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.'sp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10):] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11):] The drawing(s) filed on
`
`is/are: a)C] accepted or b)E] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)C] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)C] All
`
`b)C] Some”
`
`c)C] None of the:
`
`1C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3.[:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) C] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) E] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190212
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/986,179
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA 0r AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013,
`
`is being examined under the
`
`first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Remarks
`
`2.
`
`The amendment filed on 1/22/2019 is acknowledged. Claims 1—2 and 8 are amended.
`
`Claims 1—9 are currently pending in the instant application.
`
`3.
`
`Previous claim objection is maintained. It is noted that the objected claim is claim 6 as
`
`claim 6 recites the objected limitations.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Previous 112 rejection is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
`
`Previous prior rejection is modified to address the above amendment.
`
`Claims 1—9 are rejected below.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`7.
`
`Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
`
`
`Claim 6 recites “the n—type semiconductor layer the and the semiconductor substrate” in
`
`
`lines 3—4 and “the p—type semiconductor layer the and the semiconductor substrate” in lines 5—6.
`
`Emphasis is added. It is suggested to be changed. Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`8.
`
`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, notwithstandingthat the claimed invention is not
`identically disclosed as set forthin 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/986,179
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 3
`
`9.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere C0. , 383 US. 1, 148 USPQ 459
`
`(1966), that are applied 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
`
`nonobvious ne s s .
`
`10.
`
`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.
`
`11.
`
`Claims 1, 4, 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al.
`
`(US 2016/0181454) in view of Nishioka et al. (US 2014/0360573).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Son et al. discloses a solar cell module (fig. 1 having a solar cell
`
`shown in fig. 2) comprising:
`
`0
`
`o
`
`a solar cell (fig. 2);
`
`a first protective member (FS, fig. 1) provided on a light receiving surface side of
`
`the solar cell (see fig. 1); and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/986,179
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 4
`
`o
`
`a first encapsulant (EC1) provided between the solar cell and the first protective
`
`member (see fig. 1);
`
`0 wherein the solar cell (fig. 2) is a back contact type cell comprising a
`
`semiconductor substrate (110, fig. 2), and an n—side electrode (C142, fig. 2, [0061—
`
`0068] and a p—side electrode (C 141, fig. 2) formed on arear surface side of the
`
`substrate (110).
`
`Son et al. teaches the first encapulant to be polyolefin (see [0048]).
`
`Son et al. does not teach the first encapsulant of polyolefin or EVA having a storage
`
`elastic modulus at 250C of llMPa or less.
`
`Nishioka et al. teaches an encapsulant such as polyolefin (see Resins (A)—(D) in [0025—
`
`0078]) having a storage elastic modulus at 250C of 50 MPa or less in the view point of
`
`preventing blocking, wrinkling, air staying and cell breakage in a process of producing the solar
`
`cell modules, 5 MPa or more or 10 MPa or more in the view point of securing the handleability
`
`and the flex tolerance of flexible solar cell modules ([0023]) therefore excellent in productivity
`
`and quality (see [0021—0023]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention was made
`
`to modify the solar cell module of Son et al. by using the polyolefin having storage elastic
`
`modules at 250C of 50MPa or less to prevent preventing blocking, wrinkling, air staying and cell
`
`breakage in a process of producing the solar cell modules, or 5 MPa or more or 10 MPa or more
`
`to secure the handleability and the flex tolerance of flexible solar cell modules therefore
`
`excellent in productivity and quality as taught by Nishioka et al. In addition,
`
`it would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the
`
`overlapping portion of 11 MPa or less, 5—11 MPa or 10—11 MPa of the ranges 50 MPa or less, 5
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/986,179
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 5
`
`MPa or more, or 10 MPa or more, respectively, disclosed by Nishioka et al. because selection of
`
`overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prirna facie case of obviousness.
`
`In re
`
`Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
`
`Regarding claim 4, modified Son et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 1 above,
`
`wherein the Son et al. discloses the solar cell comprises an n—type semiconductor layer (172, fig.
`
`2 [0065]) and a p—type semiconductor layer (121, fig. 2, [0062—0063]) on the rear surface of
`
`the semiconductor substrate (110, see fig. 2).
`
`Regarding claim 6, modified Son et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 4 above,
`
`wherein Son et al. further discloses the semiconductor substrate comprises, on the rear surface, a
`
`first region (172 and C142) and corresponding to a junction surface between the n—type
`
`semiconductor layer (172) the and the semiconductor substrate (110, see fig. 2), a second region
`
`(121 and C141) corresponding to a junction surface between the p—type semiconductor layer
`
`(121) the and the semiconductor substrate (110), the n—side electrode (C 142) is formed in the first
`
`type region, the p—side electrode (C141) is formed in the second type region (see fig. 2), and the
`
`width of each electrode is shown to have the width to be about 80% or less than the width of the
`
`corresponding region (see fig. 2).
`
`Modified Son et al. does not explicitly state the width of the n—side electrode is less than
`
`80% of the width of the first region, and the width of the p—side electrode is less than 80% of the
`
`width of the second region.
`
`However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to have formed the width of the n—side electrode is less than 80% of the width of the
`
`first region, and the width of the p—side electrode is less than 80% of the width of the second
`
`region, because Son et al. explicitly shows the width of each electrode is shown to have the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/986,179
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 6
`
`width to be about 80% or less than the width of the corresponding region (see fig. 2).
`
`Furthermore, as the conductivity of the electrodes and efficiency of the solar cell module and
`
`cost of forming the solar cell module are variables that can be modified, among others, by
`
`adjusting the width of the electrode in the corresponding region with conductivity of the
`
`electrode and the efficiency of the solar cell and the cost increasing as width is increased, and the
`
`precise width of the electrodes to achieve less than 80% the width of the corresponding region
`
`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
`
`percentage of the width of each electrode in comparison with the width of the corresponding
`
`region 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, width of each electrode
`
`to be less than 80% of the width of the corresponding region in the solar cell module of modified
`
`Son et al. to obtain the desired balance between the conductivity of the electrodes, the efficiency
`
`of the solar cell module and the cost of forming the solar cell module (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 7, modified Son et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 1 above,
`
`wherein Nishioka et al. discloses the first encapsulant of polyolefin containing a crosslinking
`
`agent (see claims 1 and 14).
`
`12.
`
`Claims 2—3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US
`
`2016/0181454) in view of Nishioka et al. (US 2014/0360573) as applied to claim 1 above, and
`
`further in view of Wright et al. (WO 2016/007402).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/986,179
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 7
`
`Regarding claims 2—3, modified Son et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 1
`
`above, wherein Son et al. discloses including a second protective member (BS, fig. 1) provided
`
`on the rear surface side of the solar cell and a second encapsulant (EC2) provided between the
`
`solar cell and the second protective member (see fig. 1).
`
`Modified Son et al. does not disclose the storage elastic modulus (G1) at 25 °C of the first
`
`encapsulant is lower than a storage elastic modulus (G2) at 25 °C of the second encapsulant and
`
`a ratio (G1/G2) of the storage elastic modulus (G1) at 25°C of the first encapsulant to the storage
`
`elastic modulus (G2) at 25°C of the second encapsulant is 0.7 or less.
`
`Wright et al. discloses having the front elastic modulus of the first (or front) encapsulant
`
`to be lower than that of the second (or back) encapsulant (see abstract, claim 1) and a ratio of the
`
`first (or front) elastic modulus to the second (or back) elastic modulus is found to be 0.3 or less
`
`(see abstract and claim 1). It is noted that elastic modulus is directly proportional to the storage
`
`elastic modulus (see equations 1 and 4 of evidentiary reference to Liu et al, “The Calculation
`
`Scheme for Prediction both of Storage and Loss Moduli”).
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to
`
`modify the solar cell module of modified Son et al. by using the second encapsulant having
`
`elastic modulus greater than the first elastic modulus of the first encapsulant at a ratio of 0.3 or
`
`less to improve impact resistance and substantially eliminate or reduces disadvantages and
`
`deficiencies as taught by Wright et al. (see [005—007]). In addition,
`
`it would have been obvious to
`
`one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to have the storage elastic modulus (G1)
`
`at 25 °C of the first encapsulant lower than a storage elastic modulus (G2) at 25 °C of the second
`
`encapsulant and aratio (G1/G2) of the storage elastic modulus (G1) at 25°C of the first
`
`encapsulant to the storage elastic modulus (G2) at 25°C of the second encapsulant is 0.3 or less
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/986,179
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 8
`
`in the solar cell module of modified Son et al., because the elastic modulus is directly
`
`proportional
`
`to the elastic modulus.
`
`13.
`
`Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US
`
`2016/0181454) in view of Nishioka et al. (US 2014/0360573) as applied to claim 1 above, and
`
`further in view of Tucci et al. (US 2009/0293948).
`
`Regarding claim 5, modified Son et al. discloses solar cell module as in claim 4 above.
`
`Modified Son et al. does not explicitly disclose the n—type semiconductor layer is an n—
`
`type amorphous semiconductor layer, and the p—type semiconductor layer is a p—type amorphous
`
`semiconductor layer.
`
`Tucci et al. discloses the n—type and p—type semiconductor layers in the back contact solar
`
`cell to be n—type amorphous semiconductor layer (see n a—Si:H in figs. 1c—d) and p—type
`
`amorphous semiconductor layer (see p a—Si:H in fig. 1e) to improve efficiency (see [0007]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention was made
`
`to modify the solar cell module of modified Son et al. by using n—type amorphous semiconductor
`
`layer (see n a—Si:H in figs. 1c—d) and p—type amorphous semiconductor layer (see p a—Si:H in fig.
`
`1e) to improve efficiency as taught by Tucci et al.
`
`14.
`
`Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US
`
`2016/0181454) in view of Nishioka et al. (US 2014/0360573) as applied to claim 1 above, and
`
`further in view of Ooi et al. (US 2009/0173384).
`
`Regarding claim 8, modified Son et al. discloses a solar cell module according to claim 1
`
`above, wherein Son et al. discloses a solar cell panel comprising the solar cell (fig. 2); the first
`
`protective member (FS, fig. 1); a second protective member (BS, fig. 1); the first encapsulant
`
`(ECl, fig. 1); and the second encapsulant (EC2, fig. 1).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/986,179
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 9
`
`Modified Son et al. does not disclose including a frame comprising an inner groove into
`
`which a peripheral edge of the solar cell panel is fitted, wherein the inner groove has a height of
`
`6 mm or less.
`
`Ooi et al. discloses including a frame (7, fig. 1) comprising an inner groove to receive the
`
`solar cell module having a thickness of 3.708 mm (or 3 mm +0.6 mm + 0.038 mm + 0.030 mm
`
`+ 0038 mm = 3.708 mm, see [0116]). Ooi et al. also shows the height of the groove is equal to
`
`the thickness of the solar cell module to receive the solar cell module.
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention was made
`
`to modify the solar cell module of modified Son et al. by incorporating a frame having a groove
`
`of a height of 3.708 mm to receive a solar cell module having the thickness of 3.708 mm as
`
`taught by Ooi et al., because Ooi et al. teaches including a frame is known in the art to inhibit a
`
`temperature of the solar cell module from going up (see [0007]).
`
`15.
`
`Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US
`
`2016/0181454) in view of Nishioka et al. (US 2014/0360573) as applied to claim 1 above, and
`
`further in view of Stancel et al. (US 2010/0065116)
`
`Regarding claim 9, modified Son et al. discloses a solar cell module as in claim 1 above.
`
`Modified Son et al. does not disclose the first protective member is a glass substrate
`
`having a thickness of 3.2 mm or greater.
`
`Stancel et al. teaches using a first protective member is a glass substrate having a
`
`thickness of 3.2 mm ([0025]) or greater ([0030]) to provide a structural support and/or act as a
`
`protective barrier (see [0025]).
`
`It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention was made
`
`to modify the solar cell module of modified Son et al. by using a glass substrate having a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/986,179
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 10
`
`thickness of 3.2 mm or greater as taught by Stancel et al. for the first protective member, because
`
`Stancel et al. teaches such protective member would provide a structural support and/or act as a
`
`protective barrier.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`16.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2019 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive.
`
`Claim objection:
`
`Applicant argues claim 4 does not recited the limitations being objected. The examiner
`
`replies that claim 6 recites the limitations being objected.
`
`Rejection under 103:
`
`Applicant argues Nishioka only discloses resins of 15 MPa as a lowest range. The
`
`examiner replies that storage elastic modulus is a property of the encapsulant. Nishioka explicitly
`
`discloses the storage elastic modulus of the encapsulant to be 50 MPa or less, 5 MPa or more, 10
`
`MPa or more (see [0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the
`
`time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of 11 MPa or less, 5—11 MPa or 10—11
`
`MPa of the ranges 50 MPa or less, 5 MPa or more, or 10 MPa or more, respectively, disclosed by
`
`Nishioka et al. because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima
`
`facie case of obviousness.
`
`In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
`
`Conclusion
`
`17.
`
`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).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/986,179
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 11
`
`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 extension fee 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 date of this
`
`final action.
`
`18.
`
`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 on 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
`
`htth/www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached on 5712721307. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571—273—8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
`
`Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
`
`may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
`
`applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
`
`system, see htth/pair—direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/986,179
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 12
`
`system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866—217—9197 (toll—free). If you would
`
`like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated
`
`information system, 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
`
`