DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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) 1-3, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by (CHANG et al. US 2014/0299187).
The rejection that was mailed on November 5, 2025 is maintained and repeated herein below as of record.
Re Claim 1, CHANG et al. disclose a method for producing a solar cell (100), comprising steps as follows: a) providing a substrate (10) having a front side and a back side in a deposition apparatus, and b) coating the substrate in situ with two layers, comprising: bl) oxidizing the substrate by exposing it to an oxygen-containing gas and to a first plasma, to generate an oxide layer, or depositing the oxide layer by PECVD (42, see Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0047] and [0146]) , and b2) subsequently depositing a silicon layer (20a, see Fig. 1and Paragraph [0050]) or SiC-layer by exposure to a silicon-containing gas, an optional carbon-containing gas and a second plasma, where step b) is carried out under vacuum in the deposition apparatus and the vacuum is maintained throughout step b) (see Paragraph [0150]).
Re Claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, CHANG et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including characterized in that wherein the back side is subjected to steps a) and b) (see Fig. 1).
Re Claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, CHANG et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including characterized in that wherein between steps bl) and b2) the substrate is not moved spatially within the deposition apparatus (see Fig. 1).
Re Claim 7, as applied to claim 1 above, CHANG et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including characterized in that wherein two or more substrates are subjected simultaneously to steps a) and b) (see Fig. 1).
Re Claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above, CHANG et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including characterized in that wherein the oxide layer generated in step bl) is configured as a tunnel layer and/or in that the solar cell is a TOPC on solar cell (see Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
CHANG et al. US 2014/0299187) in view of JIN et al. (KR 101396445 B1).
The rejection that was mailed on November 5, 2025 is maintained and repeated herein below as of record.
Re Claim 12, as applied to claim 1 above, CHANG et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including deposition apparatus.
However, CHANG et al. do not disclose wherein the deposition apparatus is a tube furnace.
JIN et al. disclose using apparatus comprises tube furnace (see English translation section Solar cell manufacturing in Page 1 of 2) in order to deposit emitter layer by plasma enhanced deposition.
Therefore, it 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 to provide CHANG et al. reference with apparatus being a tube furnace as taught by JIN et al. in order to deposit emitter layer by plasma enhanced deposition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 8, 10-11 and 13-15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “While para. [0050] does describe a silicon layer 20a at para. [0050], para. [0050] does not describe how the layer was formed. Further, para. 0150 is directed to forming passivation film 21 on the layer 20a, and does not describe forming layer 20a, let alone describing "depositing a silicon layer or SiC-layer by exposure to a silicon-containing gas.. and a second plasma. Second, and with respect to the element "where step b) is carried out under vacuum in the deposition apparatus and the vacuum is maintained throughout step b)," the Office Action cites Chang, para. [0150]. As noted above, Chang does not describe processes for forming silicon layer 20a, but rather, mentions in limited detail, processes for forming passivation film 21 and anti-reflective film 22. Applicant notes that para. [0150] does mention using "vacuum deposition" to form the films 21 and 22. However, as noted, vacuum deposition in this context is directed to formation of films 21 and 22 and not layer 20a.”
In response Applicant’s arguments, it is respectfully submitted that CHANG et al. disclose all the claimed limitations of claim 1. Applicant’s argument that “Chang, para. [0150]. does describe a silicon layer 20a at para. [0050], para. [0050] does not describe how the layer was formed…” has not merit.
In repose to Applicant’s contention, it is respectfully submitted that CHANG et al. disclose the emitter area 20 includes a first portion 20a and further described that the emitter area 20a may include polycrystalline silicon, amorphous silicon or microcrystalline silicon doped with a second conductive type dopant ([0050]). CHANG et al. disclose first portions 20a and 30a may formed, thermal growth, deposition (for example, plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition chemical (PECVD)) or the like (note paragraph [0146]).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Further in response to Applicant’s arguments that “[0150] does mention using "vacuum deposition" to form the films 21 and 22, however, as noted, vacuum deposition in this context is directed to formation of films 21 and 22 and not layer 20a.” In response, it is respectfully submitted that layer 20a cannot formed without vacuum, in order to establish deposition process such thermal growth, deposition (for example, plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition chemical (PECVD)) or the like, the chamber must kept under vacuum it is inherent. Therefore, vacuum deposition is inherently disclosed for deposition of layer 20a.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-3, 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is deemed proper.
In addition, the prima facie case of obviousness has been met and the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is still deemed proper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK KEBEDE whose telephone number is (571)272-1862. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 8:00 AM 5:00 PM.
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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at 571-272-2266. 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.
/BROOK KEBEDE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2894
/BK/
March 20, 2026