Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/17/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance. This action is made final.
Status of Rejections Pending
since The Office Action of 11/17/2025
The examiner modified the rejection below to address claim amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim 1-2, 5-6, 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO 2011093329, and further in view of DE 102008045522 and Asaumi et al (PG pub 20120012179) and US 7883343, hereinafter as ‘329 and ‘522 and ‘343.
Regarding claim 1, ‘329 teaches a solar cell comprising:
a silicon substrate 10n, wherein the silicon substrate has a first surface opposite a second surface [fig 4 description section]
a thin layer 32i disposed on a first portion of the first surface of the silicon substrate [fig 4];
a thin layer 22i disposed on a second portion of the first surface of the silicon substrate, wherein a portion of the thin oxide layer is in contact with and disposed over the thin dielectric layer [fig 3];
a first wide band gap doped semiconductor 35n of a first conductivity type disposed on the thin layer (layer 35p is an amorphous silicon, it is considered that it is a wide band gap doped semiconductor as shown in para 21 of instant application); [fig 4 description section]
a doped crystalline silicon of a second conductivity type 25p disposed on the thin layer, wherein a portion of the first wide band gap doped semiconductor is disposed over the crystalline doped silicon and the thin layer [fig 4 description section]
a first contact disposed 50n directly on the first wide band gap doped semiconductor 35n [fig 4 description section]; and
a second contact 50p disposed on the crystalline doped silicon, wherein the second contact is disposed over and through the doping material, first wide band gap doped semiconductor and the thin oxide layer [fig 3 description section]
the first contact 50n has a maximum lateral width less than a maximum lateral width of the second contact 50p l(L1<L2) [fig 4]
‘329 teaches the thin layer 32i and 22i being an intrinsic, but ‘329 does not teach layer 12b and 13b being the thin oxide layer and thin dielectric layer respectively.
‘329 teaches a passivation layer being an intrinsic amorphous semiconductor or oxide [description section]
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the thin layer 32i and 22i as taught by ‘329 to be made of oxide layer as taught by ‘329 for preventing recombination and intrinsic amorphous or oxide film are used as the material for passivation layer and it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent material recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. A substitution of known equivalent structures is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As for combination, layer 32i is considered to be the thin oxide layer and layer 22i is considered to be the thin dielectric layer. Also, the thin oxide layer 32i disposed on a first portion of the first surface of the silicon substrate [fig 12], the thin dielectric layer 22i disposed on a second portion of the first surface of the silicon substrate, wherein a portion of the thin oxide layer is in contact with and disposed over the thin dielectric layer [fig 3] and the thin oxide layer 32ihas a bottommost surface below a bottommost surface of the thin dielectric layer 22i.
Or alternatively,
‘522 teaches a solar cell comprising having tunnel passivation layer 9 containing a intrinsic layer 11 where the passivation layer is made of aluminum oxide, [fig 3 description section].
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the layer 22i and 32i of ‘329 to be the tunnel passivation layer as taught by ‘522 for enable the quantum mechanical tunneling of the charge carriers through them, as well as a passivation.
As for combination, layer 32i is considered to be the thin oxide layer and layer 22i is considered to be the thin dielectric layer. Also, the thin oxide layer 32i disposed on a first portion of the first surface of the silicon substrate [fig 12], the thin dielectric layer 22i disposed on a second portion of the first surface of the silicon substrate, wherein a portion of the thin oxide layer is in contact with and disposed over the thin dielectric layer [fig 3] and the thin oxide layer has a bottommost surface below a bottommost surface of the thin dielectric layer.
Modified ‘329 teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but modified ‘329 does not teach a doping material as claimed.
Asumi et al teaches a solar cell comprising a layer 12a, 3as being a multilayers disposed on the crystalline doped silicon, it is considered that one layer of the multilayer would be a doping material [para 38];
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed duplicate layer 35n, 25p of modified ‘329 to be multilayers as taught by Asumi et al since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a devices involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8
As for combination, a doping material disposed on crystalline silicon.
Modified ‘329 teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but modified ‘329 does not teach the first contact has an uppermost surface below an uppermost surface of the second contact 50 and above an uppermost surface of the first wide band gap doped semiconductor.
‘343 teaches a solar cell comprising a back side of substrate surface being uneven and the first contact 52 has an uppermost surface below an uppermost surface of the second contact and above an uppermost surface of the first wide band gap doped semiconductor ((N+, p+ region)[fig 15].
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed modify the back surface of substate of modified ‘329 to have the same shape such that the first contact has an uppermost surface below an uppermost surface of the second contact and above an uppermost surface of the first wide band gap doped semiconductor as taught by ‘343 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 2, modified ‘329 teaches the silicon substrate is an N-type bulk silicon [fig 4 description section].
Regarding claim 5-6, para 21 of instant application shows the wide bandgap being made of amorphous silicon, it is considered that the wide bandgap 35p having the claimed band gap and resistivity. It is noted that "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 10, modified ‘329 teaches the doping material comprising p-type doping material [fig 4]
Claim 3-4, 7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO 2011093329, and DE 102008045522 and Asaumi et al (PG pub 20120012179), US 7883343 and further in view of US 20110056545, hereinafter as ‘545.
Regarding claim 3-4,7 modified ‘329 the claimed limitation as set forth above, but modified ‘329 does not teach the second wide bandgap.
‘545 teaches a back contact solar cell having FSF 171 being made of amorphous which is considered to the second wide bandgap [para 55-57 fig 3A]. Also, ‘545 teaches the substrate being textured and the front structure is conformal the texture and including passivation layer 191, second wide bandgap 171, and reflecting layer 130 would improve the cell’s efficiency [para 57]
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the front surface of modified ‘329 by structure 191,171,130 with the texture surface of substrate as taught by ‘545 for improving the cell’s efficiency.
Claim 8-9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO 2011093329, and DE 102008045522 and Asaumi et al (PG pub 20120012179) and further in view of US 20100154869, hereinafter as ‘869.
Regarding claim 8-9, modified ‘329 the claimed limitation as set forth above, but modified ‘329 does not teach the first portion of the first surface of the silicon substrate comprising a textured surface.
'869 teaches a solar cell comprising substrate 100 with texturized surface on the front and back side [fig 8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the second surface of silicon substrate of modified ‘329 to be texturized 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).
As for combination, a portion of the first wide band gap doped semiconductor and a portion of the thin oxide layer are conformal to the texturized surface of the first surface.
Claim 11-12, 15-16, 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO 2011093329, and further in view of DE 102008045522 and Asaumi et al (PG pub 20120012179) and US 7883343, hereinafter as ‘329 and ‘522, ‘343.
Regarding claim 11, 329 teaches a method of making a solar cell comprising:
a silicon substrate 10n, wherein the silicon substrate has a first surface opposite a second surface [fig 4 description section]
a thin layer 32i disposed on a first portion of the first surface of the silicon substrate [fig 4];
a thin layer 22i disposed on a second portion of the first surface of the silicon substrate, wherein a portion of the thin oxide layer is in contact with and disposed over the thin dielectric layer [fig 3];
a first wide band gap doped semiconductor 35n of a first conductivity type disposed on the thin layer (layer 35p is an amorphous silicon, it is considered that it is a wide band gap doped semiconductor as shown in para 21 of instant application); [fig 4 description section]
a doped crystalline silicon of a second conductivity type 25p disposed on the thin layer, wherein a portion of the first wide band gap doped semiconductor is disposed over the crystalline doped silicon and the thin layer [fig 4 description section]
a first contact disposed 50n directly on the first wide band gap doped semiconductor 35n [fig 4 description section]; and
a second contact 50p disposed on the crystalline doped silicon, wherein the second contact is disposed over and through the doping material, first wide band gap doped semiconductor and the thin oxide layer [fig 3 description section]
the first contact 50n has a maximum lateral width less than a maximum lateral width of the second contact 50p l(L1<L2) [fig 4]
‘329 teaches the thin layer 32i and 22i being an intrinsic, but ‘329 does not teach layer 12b and 13b being the thin oxide layer and thin dielectric layer respectively.
‘329 teaches a passivation layer being an intrinsic amorphous semiconductor or oxide [description section]
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the thin layer 32i and 22i as taught by ‘329 to be made of oxide layer as taught by ‘329 for preventing recombination and intrinsic amorphous or oxide film are used as the material for passivation layer and it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent material recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. A substitution of known equivalent structures is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As for combination, a thin oxide layer 31i disposed on a first portion of the first surface of the silicon substrate [fig 12], a thin dielectric layer 22i disposed on a second portion of the first surface of the silicon substrate, wherein a portion of the thin oxide layer is in contact with and disposed over the thin dielectric layer [fig 3] and the thin oxide layer has a bottommost surface below a bottommost surface of the thin dielectric layer.
Or alternatively,
‘522 teaches a solar cell comprising having tunnel passivation layer 9 containing a intrinsic layer 11 where the passivation layer is made of aluminum oxide, [fig 3 description section].
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the layer 22i and 32i of ‘329 to be the tunnel passivation layer as taught by ‘522 for enable the quantum mechanical tunneling of the charge carriers through them, as well as a passivation.
As for combination, a thin oxide layer 32i disposed on a first portion of the first surface of the silicon substrate [fig 12], a thin dielectric layer 22i disposed on a second portion of the first surface of the silicon substrate, wherein a portion of the thin oxide layer is in contact with and disposed over the thin dielectric layer [fig 3] and the thin oxide layer has a bottommost surface below a bottommost surface of the thin dielectric layer.
Modified ‘329 teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but modified ‘329 does not teach a doping material as claimed.
Asumi et al teaches a solar cell comprising a layer 12a, 3as being a multilayer disposed on the crystalline doped silicon, it is considered that one layer of the multilayer would be a doping material [para 38];
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed duplicate layer 35n, 25p of modified ‘329 to be multilayers as taught by Asumi et al since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a devices involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8
As for combination, a doping material disposed on crystalline silicon.
Modified ‘329 teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but modified ‘329 does not teach the first contact has an uppermost surface below an uppermost surface of the second contact 50 and above an uppermost surface of the first wide band gap doped semiconductor.
‘343 teaches a solar cell comprising a back side of substrate surface being uneven and the first contact has an uppermost surface below an uppermost surface of the second contact and above an uppermost surface of the first wide band gap doped semiconductor ((N+, p+ region)[fig 15].
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed modify the back surface of substate of modified ‘329 to have the same shape such that the first contact 52 has an uppermost surface below an uppermost surface of the second contact and above an uppermost surface of the first wide band gap doped semiconductor as taught by ‘343 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 12, modified ‘329 teaches the silicon substrate is an N-type bulk silicon [fig 4 description section].
Regarding claim 15-16, para 21 of instant application shows the wide bandgap being made of amorphous silicon, it is considered that the wide bandgap 35p having the claimed band gap and resistivity. It is noted that "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 20, modified ‘329 teaches the doping material comprising p-type doping material [description section]
Claim 13-14, 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO 2011093329, and DE 102008045522 and Asaumi et al (PG pub 20120012179) and US 7883343 ,and further in view of US 20110056545, hereinafter as ‘545.
Regarding claim 13-14,17 modified ‘329 the claimed limitation as set forth above, but modified ‘329 does not teach the second wide bandgap.
‘545 teaches a back contact solar cell having FSF 171 being made of amorphous which is considered to the second wide bandgap [para 55-57 fig 3A]. Also, ‘545 teaches the substrate being textured and the front structure is conformal the texture and including passivation layer 191, second wide bandgap 171, and reflecting layer 130 would improve the cell’s efficiency [para 57]
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the front surface of modified ‘329 by structure 191,171,130 with the texture surface of substrate as taught by ‘545 for improving the cell’s efficiency.
Claim 18-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over WO 2011093329, and DE 102008045522 and Asaumi et al (PG pub 20120012179), US 7883343, and further in view of US 20100154869, hereinafter as ‘869.
Regarding claim 18-19, modified ‘329 the claimed limitation as set forth above, but modified ‘329 does not teach the first portion of the first surface of the silicon substrate comprising a textured surface.
'869 teaches a solar cell comprising substrate 100 with texturized surface on the front and back side [fig 8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the second surface of silicon substrate of modified ‘329 to be texturized 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).
As for combination, a portion of the first wide band gap doped semiconductor and a portion of the thin oxide layer are conformal to the texturized surface of the first surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues in substance:
none of cited references teaches the claimed amendment.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. modified ‘329 teaches the claimed amendment as set forth above.
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
Prosecution Insights