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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/13/2026 has been entered.
Status of claims
Claims 1-20 are pending
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 115347059, and further in view of CN217306520, hereinafter as ‘059 and ‘520.
Regarding claim 1, ‘059 teaches a solar cell comprising:
a substrate 1, having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, wherein the first surface 1a includes a metal pattern region and a non-metal pattern region [fig 2 description]
the first surface is uneven and has a first maximum height with respect to the second surface in the non-metal pattern region and a second maximum height with respect to the second surface in the metal pattern region, the first maximum height being lower than the second maximum height [fig 2 see drawing below]
at least one passivation contact structure covering the first surface and including a tunneling layer 2 and a doped conductive layer 3 stacked in a direction away from the substrate [fig 2 description]
an emitter 8 formed over the second surface, wherein the emitter 8 includes a doped element having a type different from a type of a doped element in the substrate, and forms a PN junction with the substrate [fig 2 5]. Fig 2 shows the first surface and fig 5 shows the second surface with emitter.
PNG
media_image1.png
716
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
‘961 teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but ‘961 does not teach a second passivation contact structure over the first passivation contact structure and
including a second tunneling layer and a second doped conductive layer stacked in the direction away from the substrate, wherein the first doped conductive layer and the second doped conductive layer have doping elements of a same type.
‘520 teaches a solar cell comprising first passivation structure 2 and second passivation structure 3where teach a second passivation contact structure over the first passivation contact structure and including a second tunneling layer 31 and a second doped conductive layer 32 stacked in the direction away from the substrate, wherein the first doped conductive layer and the second doped conductive layer have doping elements of a same type [fig 1-3 specific implementation examples section].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add second passivation contact structure of ‘520 to be over the first passivation contact structure as taught by ‘961 for form good ohm contact [fig 1-3 specific implementation examples section].
Regarding claim 2, since the height difference between first and second maximum height is equal the thickness of layer 4 and 5 where thickness of layer 4 and 5 is would be around 500 nm which is within claimed range (it is noted that the thickness of the layer 4 is less than layer 5 where maximum thickness of layer 5 is 500 nm, thus the total of both thickness is within the claimed range) (description fig 2).
Claim(s) 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 115347059 and CN217306520, and further in view of KR101680384, hereinafter as ‘038.
Regarding claim 3, ‘059 teaches the claimed limitation, but ‘304 does not teach claimed first and second texture.
‘384 teaches a solar cell comprising a substrate having uneven surface where the first surface has a first maximum height (height b of protrusion 21) with respect to the second surface in the non-metal pattern region and a second maximum height (height by of protrusion 22) with respect to the second surface in the metal pattern region, the first maximum height being lower than the second maximum height [fig 3c]. Also, the first surface has a first texture structure (protrusion 22) in the metal pattern region and a second texture structure (protrusion 21) in the non-metal pattern region, and a roughness of the first texture structure is greater than a roughness of the second texture structure [fig 3c-e]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the whole first surface of the substrate of ‘304 to be uneven as taught by ‘384 for reducing the shunt defects and improving the efficiency of the solar cell (abstract). As for combination, the first surface has a first texture structure (protrusion 22) in the metal pattern region and a second texture structure (protrusion 21) in the non-metal pattern region, and a roughness of the first texture structure is greater than a roughness of the second texture structure [fig 3c-e]
Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 115347059, CN217306520, and KR101680384 and further in view of Wang et al ( Pat No. 8168465).
Regarding claim 4, modified ‘059 teaches a first texture structure with pyramid structure and second texture structure where the height of the first texture structure larger than that of second texture structure, but modified ‘304 does not teach the shape of the second texture structure.
Wang et al teaches a wafer having pyramid structure and platform embossed structure wherein the one- dimensional size of a bottom surface of the pyramid structure is less than a one-dimensional size of a bottom surface of the platform embossed structure [fig 4B].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the second texture structure of modified ‘059 to be the platform embossed structure as taught by Wang et al since such a shape for the structure is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed item was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Also, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the size of the bottom of the pyramid and platform embossed structure of modified ‘910 to be the same as taught by Wang et al and 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). As for combination, modified ‘910 teaches the first texture structure includes a pyramid structure; the second texture structure includes a platform embossed structure, a height of the pyramid structure is greater than a height of the platform embossed structure, and a one- dimensional size of a bottom surface of the pyramid structure is less than a one-dimensional size of a bottom surface of the platform embossed structure; wherein the height of the pyramid structure is a height from a tip of the pyramid structure to a bottom of the pyramid structure and the height of the platform embossed structure is a height from a bottom of the platform embossed structure to a top surface of the platform embossed structure.
Regarding claim 5, modified ‘059 teaches the height of pyramid protrusion 22 is 170nm to 2000nm, and the aspect ratio b/a is 1.7 to 2.5 where b is the height and a is the diameter. Thus, the one-dimensional size of the bottom surface of the pyramid structure is overlapped the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, modified ‘059 teaches the height of platform embossed protrusion 21 is 300 to 600nm, and a is the diameter of 300-600nm. Thus, the one-dimensional size of the bottom surface of the platform embossed structure is overlapped the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 115347059, CN217306520 and further in view of Mulligan et al ( Pat No. 7339110).
Regarding claim 7, ‘059 teaches there being a transitional region adjacent to the metal pattern region and the non-metal pattern region and the at least one passivation contact structure is covered on the transitional region [fig 2] but ‘059 does not teach the transitional region has a height not lower than the first maximum height and not higher than the second maximum height, the height of the transitional region is a height at any point of the transitional region and relative to the second surface.
Mulligan et al teaches a solar cell having the first surface further includes a transitional region adjacent to the metal pattern region and the non-metal pattern region [fig 15]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the first surface of modified ‘’059 to have same structure which includes the transitional region as taught by Mulligan et al 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, the transitional region has a height not lower than the first maximum height and not higher than the second maximum height, the height of the transitional region is a height at any point of the transitional region and relative to the second surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
394
818
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, there is an included angle in a range of 90° to 160° between the transitional region and the non-metal pattern region [fig 15]
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 115347059, CN217306520 and Mulligan et al ( Pat No. 7339110) and further in view of KR101680384.
Regarding claim 9, modified 059 teaches the claimed limitation, but modified ‘059 does not teach the claimed third texture.
‘384 teaches a solar cell comprising a substrate having uneven surface where the first surface has a first maximum height (height b of protrusion 21) with respect to the second surface in the non-metal pattern region and a second maximum height (height by of protrusion 22) with respect to the second surface in the metal pattern region, the first maximum height being lower than the second maximum height [fig 3c]. Also, the first surface has a first texture structure (protrusion 22) in the metal pattern region and a second texture structure (protrusion 21) in the non-metal pattern region, and a roughness of the first texture structure is greater than a roughness of the second texture structure [fig 3c-e]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the whole first surface of the substrate of ‘304 to be uneven as taught by ‘384 for reducing the shunt defects and improving the efficiency of the solar cell (abstract). As for combination, the first surface has a third texture structure (protrusion 21) in the transitional region and the third texture structure has a roughness less than the roughness of the first texture structure (protrusion 22).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 115347059, CN217306520 and Mulligan et al (Pat No. 7339110) and KR101680384 and further in view of Washio et al (Pat No. 6313397).
Regarding claim 10, modified ‘’059 teaches the transitional region having third texture surface, but modified ‘059 does not teach the shape of the third texture surface.
Washio et al teaches a solar cell having triangular-prism-shaped embossed structures with a sectional shape of triangular or triangle-like [fig 7].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the third texture structure of modified ‘059 to be triangular-prism-shaped embossed structures as taught by Washio et al since such a shape for the structure is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed item was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 11-13, 15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 115347059, CN217306520 and further in view of Asaumi et al (PG Pub 20120012179).
Regarding claim 11, ‘059 taches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but ‘059 does not teach first portion and second portion adjacent to each other, wherein the first portion covers a top surface and side surfaces of the first passivation contact structure, the second portion covers the remaining region of the first surface other than the metal pattern region, and the second passivation contact structure includes a second tunneling layer 13b and a second doped conductive layer 12a stacked in the direction away from the substrate
Asaumi et al teaches at least one passivation contact structure includes:
a first passivation contact structure (12a,b), over the metal pattern region, wherein the first passivation contact structure includes a first tunneling layer 12b and a first doped conductive layer 12a stacked in the direction away from the substrate [fig 12, Asaumi et al;
a second passivation contact structure (13a,13b) , including first portion and second portion adjacent to each other, wherein the first portion covers a top surface and side surfaces of the first passivation contact structure, the second portion covers the remaining region of the first surface other than the metal pattern region, and the second passivation contact structure includes a second tunneling layer 13b and a second doped conductive layer 12a stacked in the direction away from the substrate [fig 12, Asaumi et al].
the tunneling layer 12b and first conductive layer comprising plurality of layers [fig 12 para 38]. Also, the tunneling layer 13b and second conductive layer 13a comprising plurality of layers [fig 12 para 38].
PNG
media_image3.png
664
898
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the second passivation contact structure of ‘059 to be the same of Asaumi et al for excellent solar cell characteristics by suppressing contamination with an undesired impurity [para 8]. Also, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to duplicate the first and second tunneling layer as well as first and second doped of modified ‘059 to be included plurality of layers as taught by Asaumi 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
Regarding claim 12, modified ‘059 teach the tunneling layer 12b and first conductive layer comprising plurality of layers [fig 12 para 38, Asaumi et al]. Thus, it is considered that the first passivation contact structure includes a plurality of sub-first passivation contact structures sequentially stacked in the direction away from the substrate, and each of the plurality of sub-first passivation contact structures include a first tunneling sub-layer and a first doped conductive sub-layer sequentially stacked in the direction away from the substrate.
Regarding claim 13, modified ‘059 teach the tunneling layer 13b and second conductive layer 13a comprising plurality of layers [fig 12 para 38, Asaumi et al].Thus, it is considered that the second passivation contact structure includes a plurality of sub-second passivation contact structures sequentially stacked in the direction away from the substrate, and each of the plurality of sub-second passivation contact structures includes a second tunneling sub-layer and a second doped conductive sub-layer sequentially stacked in the direction away from the substrate.
Regarding claim 15, modified ‘059 teaches a first electrode 20c , which is electrically connected with the first doped conductive layer [fig 12].
Regarding claim 17, modified ‘059 teaches the first doped conductive layer has a thickness greater than a thickness of the second doped conductive layer [fig 12, Asaumi et al].
Regarding claim 18, modified ‘059 teaches the thickness of the first and second tunnelling layer 12b, 13b being 3 to 50 nm [para 68 72].
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 115347059, CN217306520 and Asaumi et al (PG Pub 20120012179) and further in view of CN 108074989.
Regarding claim 19, modified ‘059 teaches the first and second tunneling layer as ser forth above, but modified ‘059 does not teach the first and second tunneling layer having different material.
‘989 teaches a solar cell having first and second tunneling layer 52 and 54 where these two layers have different material (description section).
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the material of the first and second tunneling layer of modified ‘059 to be different from each other as taught by ‘989 since Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP2144.07).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 115347059, CN217306520 and Asaumi et al (PG Pub 20120012179). and further in view of Yamarin et al (PG pub 20170301805).
Regarding claim 16, modified ‘059 teaches the claimed limitation, but modified ‘059 does not teach the concentration of first and second doped conductive layer.
Yamarin et al teaches a concentration of a doped element in the first doped conductive layer is greater than or equal to a concentration of a doped element in the second doped conductive layer [ para 45] where the first doped conductive layer has a concentration of a doped element in a range of 10 21atoms/cm3, and the second doped conductive layer has a concentration of a doped element in a range of 5.0×10.sup.19/cm.sup.3 [para 68 78].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the doping concentration of first and second doped conductive layer as taught by modified ‘’059 to be the same of Yamarin et al 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).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by CN 115347059, and further in view of CN217306520 and Lu et al (PG pub 20190312166), hereinafter as ‘059 and ‘520
Regarding claim 20, ‘059 teaches a solar cell comprising:
a substrate 1, having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface, wherein the first surface 1a includes a metal pattern region and a non-metal pattern region [fig 2 description]
the first surface is uneven and has a first maximum height with respect to the second surface in the non-metal pattern region and a second maximum height with respect to the second surface in the metal pattern region, the first maximum height being lower than the second maximum height [fig 2 see drawing below]
at least one passivation contact structure covering the first surface and including a tunneling layer 2 and a doped conductive layer 3 stacked in a direction away from the substrate [fig 2 description]
an emitter 8 formed over the second surface, wherein the emitter 8 includes a doped element having a type different from a type of a doped element in the substrate, and forms a PN junction with the substrate [fig 2 5]. Fig 2 shows the first surface and fig 5 shows the second surface with emitter.
‘961 teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but ‘961 does not teach a second passivation contact structure over the first passivation contact structure and including a second tunneling layer and a second doped conductive layer stacked in the direction away from the substrate, wherein the first doped conductive layer and the second doped conductive layer have doping elements of a same type.
‘520 teaches a solar cell comprising first passivation structure 2 and second passivation structure 3where teach a second passivation contact structure over the first passivation contact structure and including a second tunneling layer 31 and a second doped conductive layer 32 stacked in the direction away from the substrate, wherein the first doped conductive layer and the second doped conductive layer have doping elements of a same type [fig 1-3 specific implementation examples section].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add second passivation contact structure of ‘520 to be over the first passivation contact structure as taught by ‘961 for form good ohm contact [fig 1-3 specific implementation examples section].
Modified ‘059 teaches the claimed limitation, but modified ‘059 does not teach the plurality of solar cell strings as claimed.
Lu et al teaches a PV module including plurality of solar cell strings with encapsulant 134 and cover 133, 135 on top the encapsulant 134 [para 125 fig 9A].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the solar cell in the solar cell string of Ly by the solar cell of modified ‘059 for protecting from environment’s damage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/13/2026 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
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