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
Claims 1-15, 17-20 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/10/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance. This action is made final.
Status of Rejections Pending
since The Office Action of 09/11/2025
The examiner placed a new rejection address claim amendment.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10, 14, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2010109201, and further in view of Xie et al (PG Pub 20130298973) and JP4812147, hereinafter as ‘201, ‘147
Regarding claim 1, ‘201 teaches solar cell comprising:
a silicon substrate 1 being made of monocrystalline [fig 1 best mode and explanation of symbols section]
an emitter area (5,6) formed on a front surface of the silicon substrate [fig 1];
a BSF layer 11 which is considered to be the second doped region [fig 1 explanation of symbols section]
a plurality of front electrodes 9 directly connected to the emitter area (5,6) by penetrating through a first opening in the anti-reflective layer (7,8) [fig 1];
a plurality of back electrodes 10 directly connected to the BSF 11 through a second opening [fig 1];
the emitter area (5,6 includes a first region 5 that is directly contacted with both the front electrode and the silicon substrate without any intervening layer [fig 1] and
a second region 6 being interposed between the first region and the silicon substrate, and the second region 20a is directly contacted with the silicon substrate 10, the first region 20b, and the front passivation film 21[fig 1] where the second region having a dopant concentration lower than a dopant concentration of the first region [fig 1best mode section]
‘201 teaches the claimed limitation, but ‘201 does not teach tunneling oxide layer as claimed.
Xie et al teaches a QTB layer being made of silicon oxide where QTB is formed either front or back of the solar cell [para 15-19]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the invention was filed to add QTB layer of Xie et al to be between the substrate and BSF as taught by ‘201 for enhancing performance of solar cell [para 35].
Modified ‘201 teaches the antireflection layer (7.8) [fig 1], but modified ‘201 does not teach the front and back passivation layer as claimed.
‘147 teaches a solar cell comprising the front passivation structure and back passivation structure (40,41) having openings which the electrodes are penetrated through [fig 9c para 27]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the invention was filed to add the front passivation layer of ‘147 below the antireflection layer (7.8) of modified ‘201 for reducing the recombination of minority carriers [para 27]. Also, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the invention was filed to add the back passivation structure (40,41) to the back surface filed of ‘201 for reducing the recombination of minority carriers [para 27]. As for combination, a front electrode connected to the additional emitter area by penetrating through the front passivation film and a back passivation film formed on the back surface field area and having an opening.
Regarding claim 2, modified ‘201 teaches an emitter area having first conductive type dopant [tech-problem section]. The recitation “is formed… substrate” is the presence of process limitation on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA, 1965).
Regarding claim 3, modified ‘201 teaches the silicon substrate having a second conductive type dopant opposite to the first conductive type dopant of the emitter [tech problem section].
Regarding claim 4, the back surface field area has a dopant having a conductive type the same as a conductive type of the silicon substrate.
Regarding claim 5, the back electrode is directly contacted with the back surface field area [fig 1]
Regarding claim 7, modified ‘201 teaches the back surface filed area being an n-type conductivity (‘201 teach the substrate being either n-type or p-type and the BSF has the same conductivity of substrate, thus the BSF would be n-type conductivity), and the passivation film being made of silicon nitride [para 27, ‘147]
Regarding claim 8 , modified ‘201 teaches an additional film 40 (antireflection film 40) on the back of the passivation film 41 [fig 9C para 27, ‘147]
Regarding claim 9, modified ‘201 teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but modified ‘201 does not teaches material of the additional film as claimed.
‘201 teaches an anti-reflection film being made of TiO2 [best mode section]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the invention was filed to modified the material of the anti-reflection film of ‘modified 201 to be made of TiO2 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 10, Modified ‘201 discloses that the tunneling layer, as described above, is 1-50 angstroms thick (i.e. 0.1-5 nm) [para 18, Xie et al]. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 14, modified ‘201 teaches the substrate being made of mono-crystalline silicon [best mode section].
Regarding claim 15, modified ‘201 teaches the solar cell further comprising: an additional film on the back passivation film as in claims 8-9, wherein the back electrode comprises a plurality of finger electrodes being disposed in parallel to each other with a regular pitch [fig 1], and wherein a portion of the additional film exposed between the plurality of finger electrodes acts as an anti-reflection film for preventing reflection of light incident through the back surface of the monocrystalline silicon substrate [fig 1]
Regarding claim 18, modified ‘201 teaches the back electrode not being formed directly on the back passivation film (the back electrode being directly formed on the anti-reflective layer 40)[fig 9c of ‘147].
Regarding claim 19, modified ‘201 teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Jin does not teach the thickness of BSF.
Xie et al teaches a solar cell comprising the emitter and BSF having thickness which is overlapped the claimed range [para 52 53]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the invention was filed to modify the thickness of the BSF of modified ‘201 to be the same of Xie et al 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).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2010109201, and Xie et al (PG Pub 20130298973) and JP4812147and further in view Kim et al (PG pub 20130175648)
Regarding claim 6, modified ‘201 teaches the back surface filed area being an p-type conductivity (‘201 teach the substrate being either n-type or p-type and the BSF has the same conductivity of substrate, thus the BSF would be p-type conductivity), but modified ‘201 does not teach the back passivation film having material as claimed.
Kim et al teaches a solar cell comprising passivation film being made of aluminum oxide [para 25 26, Jin et al] having negative charge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the invention was filed to modify the material of the back passivation film of modified ‘201 to be the same of Kim et al for good result and since selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP2144.07).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2010109201, and Xie et al (PG Pub 20130298973) and JP4812147 and further in view of Harder (US 2011/0174374 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified ‘201 teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but modified ‘201 does not teach the additional back surface having structure as claimed.
Harder discloses a back intrinsic/passivation/tunneling layer (11) is entirely formed over a surface of the semiconductor substrate (3) (Figures 4A and B and paragraphs 9 and 53), as in Heng. A layer of doped amorphous silicon (7), which has the opposite doping to that of layer (5) is formed on the back surface of the semiconductor substrate (3) (Figure 4A and paragraphs 27, 50 and 52, as in Heng. Harder discloses that the interfacial region (25, Figures 3-4) of the semiconductor substrate is doped with the same dopant as the amorphous silicon layer (7) and at a higher concentration that the substrate (paragraph 14, 16, 17, and 29). Harder discloses that charge recombination in solar cells leads to a decrease in open circuit voltage (paragraph 19) and that providing the interfacial region (25), as described above, causes a field effect that prevents charge carriers from recombining at the interface (paragraphs 17-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of modified ‘201 with the interfacial region in the semiconductor substrate, as taught by Harder, in order to prevent charges from recombining at the surface of the semiconductor substrate and thereby increasing the open circuit voltage of the device, as described above.
Regarding claim 12, The combination teaches the additional back surface field area has a dopant having a conductive type the same as a conductive type of a dopant of the back surface field area.
Regarding claim 13, modified ‘201 teaches the additional back surface field formed entirely over the substrate and the material for dopants of the substrate and the additional back surface field are identical’ Thus, the additional back surface filed area has the same crystalline structure as the silicon substrate.
Claims 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable JP2010109201, and Xie et al (PG Pub 20130298973) and JP4812147 and further in view of Manivannan et al (PG pub 20060255340).
Regarding claim 17, Modified ‘201 teaches the emitter area as set forth above, but modified ‘201 does not teach emitter area being made of monocrystalline
Manivannan et al teaches a solar cell comprising an emitter16 being made of crystalline which is included either monocrystalline or polycrystalline and substrate being made of monocrystalline or polycrystalline [fig 3 para 8]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the invention was filed to modify the material of the emitter area of modified ‘201to be made of monocrystalline as taught by Manivanna et al since selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP2144.07). as for combination, the crystalline structure of the emitter area is the same with a crystalline structure of the silicon substrate and different from a crystalline structure of the back surface field area.
Regarding claim 20, since modified ‘201 teaches the thickness of the claimed BSF area as set forth above, the thickness of the polycrystalline silicon back surface field area is provided when a crystalline structure of the polycrystalline silicon back surface field area being different from that of the monocrystalline silicon substrate and that of the emitter area (as in claim 1 and 17 above) [fig 1].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/10/2025 are deemed moot in view of the following new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims which significantly affected the scope thereof (i.e., by incorporating new limitations into the independent claims, which require further search and consideration).
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 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