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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 15, 19, 31, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Krauss et al. (DE 10 2015104236; English machine translation) in view of Chang et al. (CN 210640259; see English machine translation) in view of Yang et al. (US 2015/0072463) in view of Geerlings (US 2014/0137934).
Regarding claim 1, Krauss discloses a solar cell (see Figure 1) comprising:
a semiconductor material (1) comprising silicon ([0060]) and a dielectric layer (insulation layer 4) located over a light-receiving surface of the semiconductor material (it is disclosed Figure 1 is a bifacial cell; [0043]; see Figure 1);
a plurality of contacts (micro-fingers 13), each contact of the plurality of contacts being a printed fire-through metallic contact ([0063]) passing substantially through the dielectric layer ([0064]; see Figures 3 and 5, where the darker color corresponds to the fire-through areas) to form a metal/semiconductor material interface at the light-receiving surface of the semiconductor material (as set forth above), each contact of the plurality of contacts extending longitudinally in a first dimension (horizontal direction in Figure 3) and the plurality of contacts being spaced apart in a second dimension substantially perpendicular to the first dimension (vertical direction in Figure 3); and
a conductive finger (main branch 12 of contact finger 9) extending longitudinally in the second dimension (see Figure 3) and electrically connecting the plurality of contacts to a first busbar at an end of the conductive finger (busbar 8; see Figures 1 and 3),
wherein the conductive finger has at least one first portion overlaying and electrically connecting to the plurality of contacts (see Figures 3 and 5), wherein each of the plurality of contacts extends beyond the first portion of the conductive finger at one or both sides of the first portion of the conductive finger in the first dimension (see Figure 3); and
wherein the first portion of the conductive finger overlays the dielectric layer and does not pass substantially through the dielectric layer (see Figure 5).
Krauss does not expressly disclose connecting the plurality of contacts to first and second busbars at opposite ends of the conductive finger.
Chang discloses two busbars (3) at opposite ends of a conductive finger (2) (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated more than one busbar so that there is a busbar at both ends of the conductive finger in the device of Krauss, as taught by Chang, so that more than one busbar is used to collect the charge carriers generated by the solar cell for more efficient output of electricity.
Modified Krauss does not expressly disclose the plurality of contacts are formed of a first metallic material comprising silver and wherein the first portion of the conductive finger is formed of a second metallic material having no silver and/or less than 50 wt% of silver than the first metallic material.
Chang further discloses a conductive finger (2) comprising a conductive finger portion (22) that overlays the plurality of contacts (21), wherein the plurality of contacts are composed of material of strong burn-through capability such as silver, and the conductive finger portion is composed of material with weak burn through capability such as copper (page 6).
As modified Krauss is not limited to any specific examples of materials for the plurality of contacts and the first portion of the conductive finger and as silver having a strong burn-through capability and copper having a weak burn through capability as electrode materials were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Chang above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any suitable materials, including silver for the plurality of contacts and copper for the first portion of the conductive finger in the device of modified Krauss. 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.
Modified Kruass does not expressly disclose an area of the metal/semiconductor material interface is between 0.5% and 2% of the total area of the light-receiving surface.
Yang discloses it is desirable to have the total printed area of the electrode on the front side of the solar cell to be less than 6% of the total area ([0109]).
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 to have an area of the metal/semiconductor material interface to be less than 6 % of the total area of the light-receiving surface in the device of modified Krauss, as taught by Yang, so that shading loss can be minimized by the metal from the electrode structure.
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).
Modified Krauss does not expressly disclose each contact has a height of less than 10 micrometers.
Geerlings discloses a solar cell comprising a plurality of contacts (50), each contact of the plurality of contacts being a printed fire-through contact passing substantially through a dielectric layer (20), wherein each contact has a height of between 5-40 microns ([0037]).
As modified Krauss is not limited to any specific examples of the height of the fire through contact through the dielectric layer and as a height of the fire through contact through the dielectric layer being between 5-40 microns was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Geerlings 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 height for the plurality of contacts, including a height between 5-40 microns in the device of modified Krauss. 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.
Further, 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 2, modified Krauss discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the first portion of the conductive finger overlaying the dielectric layer is a non-fire-through portion of the conductive finger (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, modified Krauss discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the plurality of contacts directly contact the semiconductor material ([0063]; see Figure 5) or a conductive layer located between the semiconductor material and the dielectric layer.
Regarding claim 15, modified Krauss discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the first portion of the conductive finger is formed of aluminium, copper, tin, tin alloy or silver/aluminium alloy (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 19, modified Krauss discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses each contact of the plurality of contacts extends beyond the first portion of the conductive finger by at least 5 micrometres, at least 10 micrometres, at least 15 micrometres, at least 20 micrometres, or at least 25 micrometres, at one or both sides of the first portion of the conductive finger in the first dimension (it is disclosed the plurality of contacts extend beyond the conductive finger by about 100 microns on both sides of the conductive finger, where in an example the conductive finger has a width of 300 microns and the area where the plurality of contacts are located has a width of 500 microns; [0070]); and
wherein the first portion of the conductive finger has a width in the first dimension that is less than about 90%, 80%, 70%, 60%, or 50%, of a length of each contact of the plurality of contacts in the first dimension (it is disclosed the increase in cross sectional area is by a factor in the range of 1.2 to 2 ([0070]; see Figure 2), such that the width of the conductive finger is 50% to 83.33% of the plurality of contacts in the first dimension).
Regarding claim 31, modified Krauss discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the solar cell comprises at least one interconnection point (contact surface 11), the first and/or second busbar being connected to the at least one interconnection point (as seen in Figure 3, the busbar 5’ is connected to contact surface 11 via contact fingers 9; [0083]) and the at least one interconnection point is formed of the first metallic material comprising silver (as set forth above).
Regarding claim 32, modified Krauss discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the at least one interconnection point is a printed fire-through metallic interconnection point passing substantially through the dielectric layer (as set forth above and as shown in Figure 1).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Krauss et al. (DE 10 2015104236; English machine translation) in view of Chang et al. (CN 210640259; see English machine translation) in view of Yang et al. (US 2015/0072463) in view of Geerlings (US 2014/0137934) in view of Chang et al. (US 2018/0366596).
Regarding claim 30, modified Krauss discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose the spacing between adjacent contacts of the plurality of contacts in the second dimension is between 60 and 500 micrometres, 100 and 400 micrometres, or 200 and 400 micrometres.
Chang discloses it is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an area occupied by the plurality of electrodes be less than or equal to 5% of the total area of the semiconductor substrate and the plurality of electrodes can be spaced apart by a distance of 200 to 300 microns ([0013]).
As modified Krauss is not limited to any specific examples of the spacing between adjacent contacts of the plurality of contacts in the second dimension and as a spacing of between 200 to 300 microns was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be suitable, as evidenced by Chang 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 spacing for the plurality of contacts, including a spacing between 200 and 300 microns in the device of modified Krauss. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Krauss does not disclose “each contact of the plurality of contacts being a printed fire-through contact” because “contact firing” is different form “fire-through printing”. However, first of all, nowhere do the claims require “fire-through printing” Applicant repeatedly allege. Second of all, Applicant stated that “fire-through printing” refers to a metallization process in which the printed paste chemically penetrates or etches through a dielectric layer during firing, which is exactly what Krauss discloses. It is unclear how the two are different. Further, one skilled in the art would appreciate and understand what “firing” means in the context of metallization formation, such that “sintering the metal paste” as Applicant states that Krauss discloses is exactly the same process being described by Applicant for their alleged “fire-through printing”. Finally, Applicant has not provided any evidence or demonstration to distinguish between the two, such that one skilled in the art would appreciate they are the same without further information providing any distinction.
Applicant argues silver does not dope a semiconductor layer comprising silicon but does not provide any evidence, and therefore is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the Stanford Advanced Materials reference cited in the prior Office Action is merely a silicon wafer with a thin silver layer, such that it is a p-type wafer with silver applied. However, it is noted that Stanford Advanced Materials was merely cited as evidence to show that silver is a p-type material, as clearly stated on page 10 of the prior Office Action, which Applicant has not disputed. It is noted that the previous argument Applicant made was that silver cannot provide p-type doping into silicon and Krauss must use aluminum without any factual basis or evidence, such that Stanford Advanced Materials was cited to dispute that argument, and was not whether or not Krauss taught p-type doping with silver, which appears to be what Applicant is arguing now.
Once again, Applicant appears to misunderstand the purpose of Wang being cited in the prior Office Action and their own argument in the previous response, such that Wang was merely cited as evidence that silver is a p-type dopant, which Applicant does not appear to dispute.
Applicant argues the above is evidence Krauss is designed to form localize, heavily doped p-type regions limiting the material for the paste to aluminum without providing any explanation or evidence and was not found to be persuasive.
Applicant’s argument with respect to Chang’s teaching being different from the instant application was not found to be persuasive because the prior art does not have to have the same reasoning. See MPEP 2144 IV. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.").
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Chang discloses the benefits of selecting a strong burn through material such as silver versus a weak burn through material such as copper for certain portions of a conductive finger, as set forth in the Office Action, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select the two materials for the purpose, such that open circuit voltage and conversion efficiency of the solar cell can be improved (page 6).
Applicant argues that there is no reason why a skilled person would choose to stop at 2% let alone 0.5% metal/semiconductor interface despite Yang teaching it is desirable to have the total printed area of the electrode on the solar cell to be less than 6% to reduce shading.
However, the rationale for the rejection includes the selection of overlapping ranges, in which Applicant apparently ignored. Therefore, the argument is a non-responsive reply to the rejection in the prior Office Action.
Applicant appears to be unfamiliar with the art and the basis for obviousness rejections, such that they are encouraged to file an appeal.
Conclusion
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