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 .
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 1-9 and 22-23 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 1 recites the limitation "the doped layer" in line 11. The claim states both of the emission member and the back surface field member each comprise a doped layer, such that it is unclear which of the doped layers is being referenced by the limitation. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-3, 5, 7 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 104134707; see English machine translation) in view of Chung et al. (US 2017/0179325).
Regarding claim 1, Guo discloses a heterojunction solar cell (see Figure 1), comprising a substrate layer (1), a first passivation layer (21), a second passivation layer (22), an emission member (heavily doped region 4 and lightly doped region 5), and a back surface field member (3);
wherein a doping type of the substrate layer is N-type or P-type (n-type; [0029]), the first passivation layer is disposed on a first surface of the substrate layer (front surface; see Figure 1), the emission member is disposed on a surface of the first passivation layer away from the substrate layer (see Figure 1), the second passivation layer is disposed on a second surface of the substrate layer opposite to the first surface (back surface; see Figure 1), the back surface field member is disposed on a surface of the second passivation layer away from the substrate layer (see Figure 1);
the emission member and the back surface field member each comprise a doped layer (4/5 and 3, as set forth above), a conducting layer (conductive medium layers 61 and 62), and an electrode layer (metal gate line layer 8 and silver paste layer 9) sequentially disposed along a direction away from the substrate layer (see Figure 1);
the doping type of the doped layer in the back surface field member is the same as the doping type of the substrate layer ([0029]), and the doping type of the doped layer in the emission member is opposite to the doping type of the substrate layer ([0029]);
one or both of the emission member and the back surface field member comprise an electrical contact reinforced structure (see emission member in Figure 1), and the electrical contact reinforced structure is a first doped region (5) and a second doped region (4) of the doped layer, wherein the second doped region is disposed beside the first doped region and is shielded by the electrode layer (see Figure 1).
While Guo does not expressly disclose a base material of the doped layer is amorphous silicon or microcrystalline silicon and crystallization degree of the second doped region is higher than crystallization degree of the first doped region, Guo discloses the doped layer is deposited onto the upper surface of the intrinsic amorphous silicon thin film layer using PECVD ([0012]) as a 20 nm thick N+ type doped layer ([0032]).
Chung discloses a solar cell (100) in Figure 21 comprising an electrical contact reinforced structure (first conductive area 32), wherein the electrical contact reinforced structure is a first doped region (322) and a second doped region (321) of the doped layer, wherein the second doped region is disposed beside the first doped region and is shielded by the electrode layer (42) (see Figure 21), and crystallization degree of the second doped region is higher than crystallization degree of the first doped region ([0302]), where the contact hole 46 is formed by irradiating a local portion of the insulation film 40 with a laser ([0300]), where the portion 321 is recrystallized under conditions different from the portion 322 due to the laser when forming the contact hole, which accounts for the difference in crystallization degree ([0301] and [0302]), and the surface roughness of the portion may be larger ([0301]; see Figure 21). Additionally, Chung discloses the portions 321 and 322 can be microcrystalline semiconductor, amorphous semiconductor or polycrystalline semiconductor ([0303] and [0327]) and the conductive area can be formed separately from the substrate ([0360]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Guo so that the crystallization degree of the second doped region is higher than the crystallization degree of the first doped region, as taught by Chung, so that the difference ensures the two portions exert sufficient effects, as disclosed by Chung ([0306]). Additionally, the portion corresponding to the contact hole would have a larger surface roughness due to the laser, such that the contact area between the portion and the electrode is maximized and improves bonding properties ([0313]).
Additionally, as Guo is not limited to any specific examples of base materials for the doped layer and as the selection of amorphous or microcrystalline semiconductor for the doped layer base material was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Chung above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable base material, including amorphous or microcrystalline semiconductor in the device of Guo. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 2, modified Guo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the electrode layer comprises a grid line electrode (see Figure 1), the second doped region is shielded by the grid line electrode (see Figure 1), but the reference does not expressly disclose a width of the grid line electrode is larger than a width of the second doped region.
Chung further discloses the width of the grid line electrode is larger than the width of the second doped region (see Figure 21).
As modified Guo is not limited to any specific examples of the structural configuration of the width of the grid line electrode and as the width of the grid line electrode being larger than the width of the second doped region was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Chung above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable structural configuration for the grid line electrode, including a width of the grid line electrode being larger than the width of the second doped region in the device of Guo. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 3, modified Guo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the second doped region is a plurality of second doped regions (see Figure 1), and the plurality of second doped regions are disposed at intervals (see Figure 1); the grid line electrode is a plurality of grid line electrodes, and the plurality of grid line electrodes are disposed at intervals (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Guo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the second doped region is exposed from a surface of the doped layer away from the substrate layer and is in contact with the conducting layer (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Guo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the doped layer in the emission member is an emission doped layer (as set forth above), the first doped region in the emission doped layer is made of doped microcrystalline silicon (as set forth above), and the emission doped layer has a thickness of 15 nm to 30 nm (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 22, modified Guo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses doping concentration of the second doped region is higher than doping concentration of the first doped region (heavily doped region 4 and lightly doped region 5; [0035]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Guo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Chung further discloses crystallinity of the second doped region is in a range from 1% to 70% (50% to 70%; [0305]).
Claims 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 104134707; see English machine translation) in view of Chung et al. (US 2017/0179325) in view of Huang et al. (CN 105322043; see English machine translation).
Regarding claim 4, modified Guo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose the width of the second doped region is 5 µm to 200 µm.
Huang discloses it is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a fine grid line width for a solar cell to be 40 microns ([0042]), 20 microns ([0054]), or 30 microns ([0066]).
As modified Guo is not limited to any specific examples of the width of the second doped region and as the width of the grid line electrode is larger than the width of the second doped region, as set forth in claim 2, and a fine grid line width for a solar cell of about 20 to 40 microns was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Huang above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable width for the grid line electrode, including a width of between 20 and 40 microns in the device of modified Guo, such that the second doped region has a smaller width. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. 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); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim(s) 6, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 104134707; see English machine translation) in view of Chung et al. (US 2017/0179325) in view of Xu et al. (US 2011/0277816).
Regarding claim 6, modified Guo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the doped layer in the emission member is an emission doped layer ([0034]), the first doped region in the emission doped layer is made of doped amorphous silicon (as set forth above), but the reference does not expressly disclose the emission doped layer has a thickness of 6 nm to 15 nm.
Xu discloses a heterojunction solar cell structure comprising an amorphous emitter layer having a thickness of between 2 and 50 nm ([0053]).
As modified Guo is not limited to any specific examples of dopant diffusion depth and as a depth of 2 to 50 nm for an emitter in a heterojunction solar cell was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Xu above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected an amorphous silicon having a thickness of between 2 and 50 nm for the emission doped layer in the device of modified Guo. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. 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); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 8, modified Guo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the doped layer in the back surface field member is a back surface field doped layer (back side field 3; [0032]), and the back surface field is a heavily doped silicon-based thin film ([0009]), but the reference does not expressly disclose the first doped region in the back surface field doped layer is made of doped amorphous silicon, and the back surface field doped layer has a thickness of 4 nm to 10 nm.
Xu discloses a heterojunction solar cell structure comprising an amorphous silicon back surface field layer having a thickness of between 3 and 30 nm ([0054]).
As modified Guo is not limited to any specific examples of dopant diffusion depth and as a depth of 3 to 30 nm for an amorphous silicon BSF in a heterojunction solar cell was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Xu above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected an amorphous silicon having a thickness of between 3 and 30 nm for the BSF doped layer in the device of modified Guo. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. 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); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 9, modified Guo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the doped layer in the back surface field member is a back surface field doped layer (back side field 3; [0032]), and the back surface field is a heavily doped silicon-based thin film ([0009]), but the reference does not expressly disclose the first doped region in the back surface field doped layer is made of doped microstaylline silicon, and the back surface field doped layer has a thickness of 15 nm to 30 nm.
Xu discloses a heterojunction solar cell structure comprising a microcrystalline BSF layer having a thickness of between 3 and 30 nm ([0054]).
As modified Guo is not limited to any specific examples of dopant diffusion depth and as a depth of 3 to 30 nm for a microcrystalline BSF layer in a heterojunction solar cell was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Xu above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a microcrystalline BSF layer having a thickness of between 3 and 30 nm in the device of Zhong. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result, and because the use of microcrystalline for the BSF layer can ensure lower series resistance and better ohmic contact with the conductive layer ([0054]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. 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); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 22-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights