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 .
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.
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.
Claims 27-28 and 40 are 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.
Claim 27 contains the limitation “the first portion is formed of one of a polycrystalline silicon, an amorphous silicon, or a microcrystalline silicon”. Claim 21, from which claim 27 depends, sets forth the limitation “a first portion disposed on the first tunneling layer and comprising a doped polycrystalline silicon layer doped with a second conductive type dopant opposite the first conductive type dopant”. Since claim 21 already requires that the first portion comprises a polycrystalline silicon layer, it is unclear what structure is being required by the above claim limitation. For the purpose of this Office Action, the above limitation will not be treated as part of claim 27.
Claim 28 contains the limitation “wherein the silicon substrate further has a base area, the base area is doped with a first conductive type dopant, the first portion and the second portion are both doped with a second conductive type dopant, and the second portion forms a pn junction with the base area”.
Claim 21, from which claim 28 depends already sets forth “a silicon substrate including a base area doped with a first conductive type dopant”, “a first portion disposed on the first tunneling layer and comprising a doped polycrystalline silicon layer doped with a second conductive type dopant opposite the first conductive type dopant; and a second portion disposed in the silicon substrate adjacent the first surface and doped with the second conductive type dopant”, and “wherein the second portion forms a pn junction with the base area”. Thus, all the limitations of claim 28 have been set forth in claim 21, from which claim 28 depends. It is unclear what additional limitations are being required by claim 28.
Additionally, the limitations in claim 28 have unclear antecedent basis since it is unclear if the limitations refer to components set forth in claim 21 or additional components.
Claim 29 is additionally rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim and including all of the claim limitations thereof.
Claim 40 contains the limitation “a base area”, “a first conductive type dopant” and “a second conductive type dopant” which have unclear antecedent basis. These terms have been set forth in claim 21, from which claim 40 depends and it is unclear if the components in claim 40 are additional component or the same components set forth in claim 21. For the purpose of this Office Action, the above limitations will be treated as if they read “the base area”, “the first conductivity type dopant” and “the second conductivity dopant, respectively.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 28 contains the limitation “wherein the silicon substrate further has a base area, the base area is doped with a first conductive type dopant, the first portion and the second portion are both doped with a second conductive type dopant, and the second portion forms a pn junction with the base area”. Claim 21, from which claim 28 depends already sets forth “a silicon substrate including a base area doped with a first conductive type dopant”, “a first portion disposed on the first tunneling layer and comprising a doped polycrystalline silicon layer doped with a second conductive type dopant opposite the first conductive type dopant; and a second portion disposed in the silicon substrate adjacent the first surface and doped with the second conductive type dopant”, and “wherein the second portion forms a pn junction with the base area”. Thus, all the limitations of claim 28 have been set forth in claim 21, from which claim 28 depends. Claim 28 is of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 21-22, 24-30, 36 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (US 20130298973) in view of Manivannan et al. (US 2006/0255340).
Regarding claims 21, 24-26 and 28, Xie discloses a solar cell in Figure 1 comprising:
a silicon substrate (102) including a base area doped with a first conductivity type dopant ([11] and [40])
a first tunneling layer (quantum tunneling barrier layer 106, [16], [39]) entirely formed on the first surface of the silicon substrate (102) (Figure 1); and
an emitter area (110 and 104) including:
a first portion (110) disposed on the first tunneling layer (106) and comprising a doped polycrystalline silicon layer doped with a second conductive type dopant opposite the first conductive type dopant ([40] and [20]); and
a second portion (104) disposed in the silicon substrate (102) adjacent the first surface and doped with the second conductive type dopant (Figure 1A and [39], [43] and [50]);
wherein the first tunneling layer (106) has a thickness of 0.5 nm to 5 nm ([18], see 50 angstrom thickness which reads on the claimed range),
wherein the first tunneling layer (106) is interposed between the first portion (110) and the second portion (104) (Figure 1A), and
wherein the second portion (104) forms a pn junction with the base area ([50]).
Xie additionally discloses a first electrode (114) electrically connected to the first portion (110) ([39]), wherein the first electrode physically contacts the doped polycrystalline silicon layer (110) and does not physically contact the additional doped region (104) (Figure 1); wherein the first portion (110) comprises a first region in direct contact with the first electrode (114) and a second region not in direct contact with the first electrode (114) (Figure 1).
Xie additionally discloses a first anti-reflective film ([54]), but Xie does not disclose a first passivation film formed on the first portion, excluding a region corresponding to the first electrode, wherein the first passivation film comprises at least one of aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, or hafnium oxide having a negative charge, wherein the first passivation film comprises at least one of silicon oxide or silicon nitride having a positive charge and Xie does not explicitly disclose that the first anti- reflective film is formed on the first passivation film, excluding a region corresponding to the first electrode.
Manivannan discloses a solar cell in Figure 1 comprising a first passivation film (18) formed on a first conductive type area (emitter layer 16) ([22]-[23]) excluding a region corresponding to a first electrode (20) (Figure 1 and [22]), wherein the first passivation film (18) comprises at least one of aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, or hafnium oxide having a negative charge ([23]), wherein the first passivation film (18) comprises at least one of silicon oxide or silicon nitride having a positive charge ([23]), wherein the first anti-reflective film is formed on the first passivation film (Xie, [54]) excluding a region corresponding to the first electrode ([23] and Figure 1, the first anti- reflective film of Xie is formed on the first passivation film which excludes a region corresponding to the first electrode as shown in Manivannan).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a first passivation film formed on the first conductive type area of Xie, wherein the first passivation film comprises at least one of aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, or hafnium oxide having a negative charge, wherein the first passivation film comprises at least one of silicon oxide or silicon nitride having a positive charge, wherein the first anti-reflective film is formed on the first passivation film excluding a region corresponding to the first electrode, as taught by Manivannan, because it would amount to the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 22, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xie additionally discloses that the first tunneling layer (106) is formed of one of nitride, oxide and oxide nitride ([17]).
Regarding claim 27, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xie additionally discloses that the silicon substrate is a monocrystalline silicon substrate ([12]).
Regarding claim 29, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xie additionally discloses that the base area has a lower doping concentration than the second portion ([40] and [13]).
Regarding claim 30, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xie additionally discloses that the first portion (110) and the second portion (104) are both doped with the second conductive type dopant ([40] and [11], both portions are doped opposite to the substrate), and a doping concentration of the first portion (110) is higher than a doping concentration of the second portion (104) ([50] and [52], the doping of counter doping region can be limited to 1x1020 and the doping of the emitter can be up to 5x1020).
Regarding claim 36, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xie additionally discloses that the first electrode (114) contacts the first portion (110) and does not contact the second portion (104) (Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 39, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xie additionally discloses a second tunneling layer (108), a second conductive type area (BSF layer 112) and a second electrode (116) (Figure 1 and [39]), wherein the second tunneling layer (108) is interposed between a second surface of the silicon substrate (102) and the second conductive type area (112) (Figure 1 and [39]), and the second electrode (116) is electrically connected to the second conductive type area (112) (Figure 1 and [39]).
Regarding claim 40, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xie additionally discloses that the silicon substrate further comprises a base area and a second doped region formed inside of the second surface of the silicon substrate ([40]), the base area and the second doped region are doped with a first conductive type dopant ([40]), and the first portion (110) and the second portion (104) are both doped with a second conductive type dopant ([40] and [11], both doped opposite the remainder of the substrate).
Claims 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (US 2013/0298973) in view of Manivannan et al. (US 2006/0255340), as applied to claim 30 above, in view of Horzel et al. (US 2003/0134469).
Regarding claims 31-34, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above. Xie does not disclose that a ratio of the doping concentration of the first portion to the doping concentration of the second portion is 5 to 10, wherein the doping concentration of the first portion is 5x1019/cm3 to 5x1020/cm3, and the doping concentration of the second portion is 5x1018/cm3 to 5x1019/cm3, wherein a ratio of a thickness of the first portion to a thickness of the second portion is 10 to 50 and wherein a thickness of the second portion is 5 nm to 100 nm, and a thickness of the first portion is 50 nm to 500 nm.
Horzel discloses a solar cell comprising a first doped region and a first conductive type area, wherein a ratio of the doping concentration of the first conductive type area to the doping concentration of the front doped region is 5 to 10, wherein the doping concentration of the first conductive type area is 5x1019/cm3 to 5x1020/cm3, and the doping concentration of the front doped region is 5x1018/cm3 to 5x1019/cm3, wherein a ratio of a thickness of the first conductive type area to a thickness of the front doped region is 10 to 50 and wherein a thickness of the front doped region is 5 nm to 100 nm, and a thickness of the first conductive type area is 50 nm to 500 nm ([32]-[33]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of modified Xie such that a ratio of the doping concentration of the first portion to the doping concentration of the second portion is 5 to 10, wherein the doping concentration of the first portion is 5x1019/cm3 to 5x1020/cm3, and the doping concentration of the second portion is 5x1018/cm3 to 5x1019/cm3, wherein a ratio of a thickness of the first portion to a thickness of the second portion is 10 to 50 and wherein a thickness of the second portion is 5 nm to 100 nm, and a thickness of the first portion is 50 nm to 500 nm, as taught by Horzel, because it would amount to the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (US 2013/0298973) in view of Manivannan et al. (US 2006/0255340), as applied to claim 21 above, in further view of Ha et al. (US 2011/0139226).
Regarding claim 37, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xie does not disclose that the second portion comprises a first region in contact with the first electrode and a second region not in contact with the first electrode, and the first region has a higher dopant concentration than the second region.
Ha discloses a selective emitter layer (120) for a solar cell in Figure 2 comprising a first region (124) in direct contact with a first electrode (140) that has a higher dopant concentration than a second region (122) of the emitter (120) not in direct contact with the first electrode (140) ([14] and [45]-[46]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the second portion of modified Xie such that the second portion comprises a first region in contact with the first electrode and a second region not in contact with the first electrode, and the first region has a higher dopant concentration than the second region, as taught by Ha, in order to improve the efficiency of the device (Ha, [8]-[14]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Xie reference in combination with Manivannan does not disclose the newly added limitations to claim 21.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Xie discloses a first tunneling layer (quantum tunneling barrier layer 106, [16], [39]) entirely formed on the first surface of the silicon substrate (102) (Figure 1); and
an emitter area (110 and 104) including:
a first portion (110) disposed on the first tunneling layer (106) and comprising a doped polycrystalline silicon layer doped with a second conductive type dopant opposite the first conductive type dopant ([40] and [20]); and
a second portion (104) disposed in the silicon substrate (102) adjacent the first surface and doped with the second conductive type dopant (Figure 1A and [39], [43] and [50]);
wherein the first tunneling layer (106) has a thickness of 0.5 nm to 5 nm ([18], see 50 angstrom thickness which reads on the claimed range),
wherein the first tunneling layer (106) is interposed between the first portion (110) and the second portion (104) (Figure 1A), and
wherein the second portion (104) forms a pn junction with the base area ([50]).
The additional limitations in claim 21 would be obvious in view of Manivannan, as discussed in the rejection above. The arguments and amendments have not been found to be persuasive and the rejection over the Xie and Manivannan references is maintained.
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 LINDSEY A BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/LINDSEY A BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
