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.
Response to Amendment
The claims submitted contain underlining and strikethrough for changes that appear to be present in the previously submitted claim set. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claims have been examined as if the underlining and strikethrough on previous changes was not present.
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 and 24-26, Xie discloses a solar cell in Figure 1 comprising:
a silicon substrate (102) having a first doped region (counter doping region 104) formed inside of a first surface of the silicon substrate ([12] and [39]-[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
a first conductive type area (emitter layer 110) formed on the first tunneling layer (106) ([39]-[40]), 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), the first doped region (counter doping region 104) has a conductive type different from the silicon substrate ([11]), the first conductive type area (emitter 110) comprising a doped polycrystalline silicon layer ([20]) and the first tunneling layer (106) is interposed between the first doped region (104) and the first conductive type area (110) (Figure 1),
wherein the first doped region (104) comprises an additional doped region formed at a portion of the silicon substrate facing the first tunneling layer (Any portion of the first doped region facing the first tunneling layer can read on the additional doped region since it is not required to have any specific distinguishing characteristics from the first doped region).
The limitations “formed at a portion of the silicon substrate facing the first tunneling layer by thermal diffusion of a dopant from the doped polycrystalline silicon layer through the first tunneling layer” are directed to method of making the solar cell. It is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114. The additional doped region has a same doping type as the doped polycrystalline silicon layer ([11], [34], [38] and [40]-[41]) and can be formed by thermal diffusion (thermal drive in) of the dopant ([15]). Therefore, since the solar cell of Xie has the same structure as the structure required by the claim language, the claim is unpatentable even though the solar cell of Xie was made by a different process. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Xie additionally discloses a first electrode (114) electrically connected to the first conductive type area (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 conductive type area (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 conductive type area, 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 28, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xie additionally discloses that the silicon substrate further has a base area, the base area is doped with a first conductive type dopant, the first conductive type area and the first doped region are both doped with a second conductive type dopant, and the first doped region forms a p-n junction along with base area ([34], [38] and [40]-[41]).
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 first doped region ([40] and [13]).
Regarding claim 30, modified Xie discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Xie additionally discloses that a dopant in the first conductive type area (110) and a dopant the first doped region (104) have a same conductive type ([40] and [11], both doped opposite the remainder of the substrate), and a doping concentration of the first conductive type area (110) is higher than a doping concentration of the first doped region (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 tunneling layer (106) is interposed between the first conductive type area (110) and the first surface of the silicon substrate (102) (Figure 1).
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], it is noted that the claim does not require different doping amounts or characteristics for the base area and second doped region and any portion of the base substrate not included in the first doped region can be interpreted to read on the base area and second doped region since the remainder of the substrate is doped opposite the first doped region and emitter layer), and the first conductive type area (110) and the first doped region (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 conductive type area to the doping concentration of the first 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 first 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 first doped region is 10 to 50 and wherein a thickness of the first doped region is 5 nm to 100 nm, and a thickness of the first conductive type area 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 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, 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 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 doped polycrystalline silicon layer in direct contact with the first electrode has a higher dopant concentration than the additional doped region not in direct contact with the first electrode.
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 conductive type area of modified Xie such that the first region of the conductive type area in direct contact with the first electrode has a higher dopant concentration than the second region of the conductive type area not in direct contact with the first electrode, as taught by Ha, in order to improve the efficiency of the device (Ha, [8]-[14]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that independent claim 21 has been amended to recite limitations not taught in the cited references. Specifically, the cited references fail to teach or suggest at least the limitation of "the first doped region comprises an additional doped region formed at a portion of the silicon substrate facing the tunneling layer by thermal diffusion of a dopant from the doped polycrystalline silicon layer through the first tunneling layer." These features are not taught in the art of record, and for at least for this reason, claim 21 is allowable.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Xie discloses that the first doped region (104) comprises an additional doped region formed at a portion of the silicon substrate facing the first tunneling layer (Any portion of the first doped region facing the first tunneling layer can read on the additional doped region since it is not required to have any specific distinguishing characteristics from the first doped region).
The limitations “formed at a portion of the silicon substrate facing the first tunneling layer by thermal diffusion of a dopant from the doped polycrystalline silicon layer through the first tunneling layer” are directed to method of making the solar cell. It is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114. The additional doped region has a same doping type as the doped polycrystalline silicon layer ([11], [34], [38] and [40]-[41]) and can be formed by thermal diffusion (thermal drive in) of the dopant ([15]). Therefore, since the solar cell of Xie has the same structure as the structure required by the claim language, the claim is unpatentable even though the solar cell of Xie was made by a different process. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Therefore, modified Xie renders obvious all of the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
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