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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 4, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on March 4, 2026. Claims 1, 12, and 17 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
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.
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 1-2, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenes et al. (US 20180277701) in view of Stodolny et al. (US 20200287066).
Regarding claim 1, Lenes teaches, in Fig. 2C (see annotated Fig. 2C below), a solar cell (Abstract), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
423
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lenes, Fig. 2C (annotated)
a substrate (100, [0055], [0071]) having a first (bottom) surface on a first side (20, [0076]) and a second (top) surface on a second side ([0071]) opposite to the first side, wherein the first (bottom) surface has a plurality of metal pattern regions ([0076], regions where metal contacts 102 vertically project, hereinafter "Metal Region") and a plurality of non-metal pattern regions (regions where 80 vertically projects, hereinafter "Non-metal Region"); and wherein:
a respective non-metal pattern region ("Non-metal Region") of the plurality of non-metal pattern regions includes a first region (where upper lower surface of 80 vertically projects, hereinafter "First Region") and a second region (where lowest surface of 80 vertically projects, hereinafter "Second Region") adjacent to and between the first region ("First Region") and a corresponding metal pattern region ("Metal Region") of the plurality of metal pattern regions;
the first surface (bottom surface of substrate 100) has a first portion (orthographic projection of "First Region" onto bottom surface of substrate 100) in the first region, a second portion (orthographic projection of "Second Region" onto bottom surface of 100) in the second region, and a third portion (orthographic projection of "Metal Region" onto bottom surface of 100) in the corresponding metal pattern region, the first portion in the first region ("First Region") is closer to the second (top) surface than the third portion in the corresponding metal pattern region ("Metal Region") ([0073], when the recess 70 is deeper into substrate 100), and the second portion in the second region ("Second Region") is not closer to the second (top) surface than the first portion in the first region ("First Region") and is not further away from the second (top) surface than the third portion in the corresponding metal pattern region ("Metal Region"); and
the substrate has a doped layer (40, [0073]-[0075]) formed in a portion of the substrate (100) corresponding to the first region ("First Region") and the second region ("Second Region"), wherein the doped layer (40) has a top (bottom surface would be the top surface if Fig. 2C is flipped) surface in the first region and the second region;
a first passivation contact structure (80, [0076]) covering the plurality of metal pattern regions ("Metal Region") of the first surface, wherein the first passivation contact structure (80) includes a plurality of first passivation contact substructures (divided into substructures by 101), and each of the plurality of first passivation contact substructures includes a first tunneling layer (13, [0073]) and a first doped conductive layer (30, [0073]) stacked in a (downwards) direction away from the substrate (100);
a plurality of first electrodes (102, [0076]) of a first polarity ([0073]-[0074]) on the first (bottom) side of the substrate, wherein each of the plurality of first electrodes (102) is electrically connected with a respective first doped conductive layer (30), and is disposed in a respective one of the plurality of metal pattern regions ("Metal Region"); and
wherein each of the plurality of non-metal pattern regions ("First Region" and "Second Region") adjoins two adjacent metal pattern regions ("Metal Region") (see marked Fig. 2C above).
Lenes does not teach a plurality of second electrodes of a second polarity opposite to the first polarity, wherein the plurality of second electrodes are disposed on the second side of the substrate.
In a similar field of endeavor, Stodolny teaches, in Fig. 1B, a plurality of second electrodes (10, labelled in Fig. 1A) of a second polarity ([0018]) opposite to the first polarity, wherein the plurality of second electrodes are disposed on the second side (bottom side) of the substrate (1, [0018]), in order to provide bifacial solar cells with improved efficiency ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solar cell of Lenes with the backside of the solar cell of Stodolny, in order to provide bifacial solar cells with improved efficiency ([0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Lenes in view of Stodolny teaches the limitations of claim 1. Stodolny further teaches that a doped element in the first doped conductive layer (5, Fig. 1B) and a doped element in the doped layer (3, 1B) are congeners ([0013], [0023], both have a dopant of the first conductivity type), in order to “improve lateral conductivity for electron/hole transport locally, improve the series resistance, in all further improving the efficiency of a resulting photovoltaic cell” ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solar cell of Lenes with the doped elements of Stodolny, in order to “improve lateral conductivity for electron/hole transport locally, improve the series resistance, in all further improving the efficiency of a resulting photovoltaic cell” ([0013]).
Regarding claim 7, Lenes in view of Stodolny teaches the limitations of claim 1. Lenes further teaches, in Fig. 2C, that a first included angle is formed between the first region (“First Region”) and the second region (“Second Region”), and the first included angle is in a range of 90° to 160° (90 degrees, see marked Fig. 2C above).
Regarding claim 14, Lenes in view of Stodolny teaches the limitations of claim 1. Stodolny, in Fig. 1B separately, teaches a second passivation contact structure (8/9, labelled in Fig. 1A) formed on the second surface (bottom surface) of the substrate (1) ([0020]).
Stodolny, in Fig. 1B separately, does not teach that the second passivation contact structure includes at least one second passivation contact substructure, and each of the at least one second passivation contact structure includes a second tunneling layer and a second doped conductive layer stacked in a direction away from the substrate.
Stodolny, in Fig. 2A separately, teaches that the second passivation contact structure (4’/5’, [0026]) includes at least one second passivation contact substructure (4’/5’ on the left, [0026]), and each of the at least one second passivation contact structure includes a second tunneling layer (4’, [0025]) and a second doped conductive layer (5’, [0013]) stacked in a direction (downwards direction) away from the substrate (1), so that the benefits of local passivating contacts such as limiting optical losses outside of the area below the metal would also be “applicable to bi-facial solar cells” ([0012], [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the embodiment of Fig. 1B with the second passivation contact substructures of Fig. 2A, so that the benefits of local passivating contacts such as limiting optical losses outside of the area below the metal would also be applicable to bi-facial solar cells ([0012], [0026]).
Claims 3-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenes et al. (US 20180277701) in view of Stodolny et al. (US 20200287066), and further in view of Ding et al. (CN 114975691 A, citations made hereinafter to the English machine translation attached to the Office Action mailed on July 3, 2025).
Regarding claim 3, Lenes in view of Stodolny teaches the limitations of claim 2. Lenes in view of Stodolny does not explicitly teach that a concentration of the doped element in the first doped conductive layer is greater than or equal to a concentration of the doped element in the doped layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ding teaches that a concentration of the doped element in the first doped conductive layer (5/41, Fig. 8) is greater than or equal to a concentration of the doped element in the doped layer (2, Fig. 8) ([0055]), so that “the battery structure is optimized and the battery efficiency is ensured by designing the doping concentration of the above-mentioned layers” ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solar cell of Lenes in view of Stodolny with the concentrations of Ding, so that the battery structure is optimized and the battery efficiency is ensured.
Regarding claim 4, Lenes in view of Stodolny and Ding teaches the limitations of claim 3. Ding further teaches that the concentration of the doped element in the first doped conductive layer (5/41) is in a range of 1×1019atoms/cm3 to 9×1020atoms/cm3 ([0019]), and the concentration of the doped element in the doped layer (2, Fig. 8) is in a range of 1×1016atoms/cm3 to 1×1020atoms/cm3 ([0016]).
Regarding claim 5, Lenes in view of Stodolny and Ding teaches the limitations of claim 3. Ding further teaches that a type of the doped element in the doped layer (2, Fig. 8, [0016]) is different from a type of a doped element in the substrate (1, Fig. 8, [0064]).
Regarding claim 8, Lenes in view of Stodolny teaches the limitations of claim 7. Lenes in view of Stodolny does not explicitly teach that a concentration of the doped element in a portion of the doped layer corresponding to the second region is not less than a concentration of the doped element in a portion of the doped layer corresponding to the first region, and is not greater than the concentration of the doped element in the first doped conductive layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ding teaches that a concentration of the doped element in a portion of the doped layer corresponding to the second region is not less than a concentration of the doped element in a portion of the doped layer corresponding to the first region (see Fig. 8 how doped layer 2 does not change concentration from the second region to the first region), and is not greater than the concentration of the doped element in the first doped conductive layer ([0055]), so that “the battery structure is optimized and the battery efficiency is ensured by designing the doping concentration of the above-mentioned layers” ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solar cell of Lenes in view of Stodolny with the concentrations of Ding, so that the battery structure is optimized and the battery efficiency is ensured.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenes et al. (US 20180277701) in view of Stodolny et al. (US 20200287066) and Ding et al. (CN 114975691 A, citations made hereinafter to the English machine translation attached to the Office Action mailed on July 3, 2025), and further in view of Chung et al. (US 10868210).
Regarding claim 6, Lenes in view of Stodolny and Ding teaches the limitations of claim 5. Lenes in view of Stodolny and Ding does not explicitly teach that the concentration of the doped element in the doped layer is greater than a concentration of the doped element in the substrate.
In a similar field of endeavor, Chung teaches that the concentration of the doped element in the doped layer (32; Fig. 1; col. 5, lines 45-50) is greater than a concentration of the doped element in the substrate (10; Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 60-65), in order to “increase the efficiency of a solar cell” (col. 63, lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solar cell of Lenes in view of Stodolny and Ding with the concentrations of Chung, in order to increase the efficiency of the solar cell.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenes et al. (US 20180277701) in view of Stodolny et al. (US 20200287066) and Ding et al. (CN 114975691 A, citations made hereinafter to the English machine translation attached to the Office Action mailed on July 3, 2025), and further in view of Westerberg et al. (US 20190019904).
Regarding claim 9, Lenes in view of Stodolny and Ding teaches the limitations of claim 8. Lenes in view of Stodolny and Ding does not explicitly teach that a concentration of the doped element in the portion of the doped layer corresponding to the second region gradually decreases in a direction approaching the second surface.
In a similar field of endeavor, Westerberg teaches, in Figs. 3G and 4, that a concentration of the doped element (408, Fig. 4) in the portion of the doped layer corresponding to the second region (below 318) gradually decreases in a direction approaching the second surface (bottom surface) (see Fig. 4, [0053]), in order to “allow for increased solar cell efficiency by providing novel solar cell structures” ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solar cell of Lenes in view of Stodolny and Ding with the doped layer concentrations of Westerberg, in order to allow for increased solar cell efficiency by providing novel solar cell structures.
Regarding claim 10, Lenes in view of Stodolny, Ding, and Westerberg teaches the limitations of claim 9. Westerberg further teaches that a concentration of the doped element at a side of the portion of the doped layer corresponding to the second region away from the second surface (see Fig. 4, top side of 408) is different from a concentration of the doped element at a side of the portion of the doped layer corresponding to the second region closer to the second surface (see Fig. 4, bottom portion of 408) by around 8E18 atoms/cm3 minus 1E17 atoms/cm3 [0049].
However, Lenes in view of Stodolny, Ding, and Westerberg does not explicitly teach that a concentration of the doped element at a side of the portion of the doped layer corresponding to the second region away from the second surface is different from a concentration of the doped element at a side of the portion of the doped layer corresponding to the second region closer to the second surface by 1×1019atoms/cm3 to 8×1020atoms/cm3. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the concentrations would impact solar cell efficiency (Westerberg, [0004]).
The specific claimed concentrations, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” concentrations disclosed by Lenes in view of Stodolny, Ding, and Westerberg that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired solar cell efficiency, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as a concentration of the doped element at a side of the portion of the doped layer corresponding to the second region away from the second surface being different from a concentration of the doped element at a side of the portion of the doped layer corresponding to the second region closer to the second surface by 1×1019atoms/cm3 to 8×1020atoms/cm3 is used, as already suggested by Lenes in view of Stodolny, Ding, and Westerberg.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the concentrations stated and since these concentrations are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Lenes in view of Stodolny, Ding, and Westerberg.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed concentrations or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenes et al. (US 20180277701) in view of Stodolny et al. (US 20200287066), Ding et al. (CN 114975691 A, citations made hereinafter to the English machine translation attached to the Office Action mailed on July 3, 2025), and Westerberg et al. (US 20190019904), and further in view of Qiu et al. (US 11695087).
Regarding claim 11, Lenes in view of Stodolny, Ding, and Westerberg teaches the limitations of claim 9. Lenes in view of Stodolny, Ding, and Westerberg that the doped layer has a square resistance in a range of 80 ohm/sq to 1000 ohm/sq.
In a similar field of endeavor, Qiu teaches that the doped layer (30, Fig. 4) has a square resistance in a range of 10 ohm/sq to 500 ohm/sq (col. 11, lines 10-30), “so that technological processes can be reduced in preparation steps and the cost is lowered” (col. 7, lines 5-10) and “the cell conversion efficiency … is greatly improved” (col. 16, lines 50-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solar cell of Lenes in view of Stodolny, Ding, and Westerberg with the doped layer of Qiu, so that technological processes can be reduced in preparation steps and the cost is lowered, and the cell conversion efficiency is greatly improved.
However, Lenes in view of Stodolny, Ding, Westerberg, and Qiu does not explicitly teach that the doped layer has a square resistance in a range of 80 ohm/sq to 1000 ohm/sq. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the square resistance would impact the cell conversion efficiency (Qiu; col. 16, lines 50-60).
The specific claimed square resistances, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” square resistances disclosed by Lenes in view of Stodolny, Ding, Westerberg, and Qiu that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired cell conversion efficiency, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the doped layer having a square resistance in a range of 80 ohm/sq to 1000 ohm/sq is used, as already suggested by Lenes in view of Stodolny, Ding, Westerberg, and Qiu.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the square resistances stated and since these resistances are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Lenes in view of Stodolny, Ding, Westerberg, and Qiu.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed resistances or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenes et al. (US 20180277701) in view of Stodolny et al. (US 20200287066), and further in view of Bao et al. (CN 110838536 A, citations made hereinafter to the English machine translation attached to the Office Action mailed on July 3, 2025), cited by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 4/23/2024.
Regarding claim 12, Lenes in view of Stodolny teaches the limitations of claim 7. Lenes in view of Stodolny does not explicitly teach that a height difference between a height of the third portion in the metal pattern region relative to the second surface and a height of the first portion in the first region relative to the second surface is in a range of 0.1μm to 10μm.
In a similar field of endeavor, Bao teaches, in Fig. 13, that a height difference between a height of the metal pattern region ([0127], region including a projection of metal 15 on the bottom surface of substrate 1) relative to the second surface (top surface of substrate 1) and a height of the first region ([0140], region where 12 projects onto the bottom surface of substrate 1 and does not include the metal pattern region) relative to the second surface is in a range of 0.1μm to 10μm ([0082]), because it “significantly reduces process steps” ([0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solar cell of Lenes in view of Stodolny with the heights of Bao, in order to significantly reduce process steps.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenes et al. (US 20180277701) in view of Stodolny et al. (US 20200287066), and further in view of Lin et al. (CN 110071182 A, citations made hereinafter to the English machine translation attached to the Office Action mailed on July 3, 2025), cited by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 11/21/2023.
Regarding claim 13, Lenes in view of Stodolny teaches the limitations of claim 1. Lenes in view of Stodolny does not explicitly teach that the first passivation contact structure includes a plurality of first passivation contact substructures stacked in the direction away from the substrate.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lin teaches, in Fig. 7, that the first passivation contact structure ([0049], stack from 31 to 7) includes a plurality of first passivation contact substructures stacked in the direction away from the substrate (1) ([0049], see Fig. 7 how the first passivation contact structure includes a first passivation contact substructure that includes a first tunneling layer 31 and a first doped conductive layer 51, and 31/51 is stacked on top of repeating first passivation contact structures from 32/52 to 3n/5n), in order to “improve the open circuit voltage and conversion efficiency of the battery, and the process technology used is suitable for large-scale mass production” [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solar cell of Lenes in view of Stodolny with the passivation contact structure of Lin, in order to improve the open circuit voltage and conversion efficiency of the battery, and the process technology used is suitable for large-scale mass production.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenes et al. (US 20180277701) in view of Stodolny et al. (US 20200287066), and further in view of Qiu et al. (US 11695087).
Regarding claim 15, Lenes in view of Stodolny teaches the limitations of claim 1. Lenes in view of Stodolny does not explicitly teach a first passivation layer, wherein the first passivation layer covers a top surface of the doped layer and a top surface and side surfaces of the first passivation contact structure.
In a similar field of endeavor, Qiu teaches, in Fig. 4, a first passivation layer (40; col. 12, lines 35-40), wherein the first passivation layer covers a top surface of the doped layer (30) and a top surface and side surfaces of the first passivation contact structure (20) (see Fig. 4), so that “the cell conversion efficiency … is greatly improved” (col. 16, lines 50-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solar cell of Lenes in view of Stodolny with the passivation layer of Qiu, so that the cell conversion efficiency is greatly improved.
Regarding claim 16, Lenes in view of Stodolny in view of Qiu teaches the limitations of claim 15. Qiu further teaches, in Fig. 4, a first electrode (50; col. 14, lines 60-65), wherein the first electrode penetrates through the first passivation layer (40) to be electrically connected to the first doped conductive layer (22) (see Fig. 4).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenes et al. (US 20180277701) in view of Stodolny et al. (US 20200287066) and Tao et al. (AU 2020226978 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Lenes teaches, in Fig. 2C (see annotated Fig. 2C below), a solar cell (Abstract), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
423
611
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lenes, Fig. 2C (annotated)
a substrate (100, [0055], [0071]) having a first (bottom) surface on a first side (20, [0076]) and a second (top) surface on a second side ([0071]) opposite to the first side, wherein the first (bottom) surface has a plurality of metal pattern regions ([0076], regions where metal contacts 102 vertically project, hereinafter "Metal Region") and a plurality of non-metal pattern regions (regions where 80 vertically projects, hereinafter "Non-metal Region"); and wherein:
a respective non-metal pattern region ("Non-metal Region") of the plurality of non-metal pattern regions includes a first region (where upper lower surface of 80 vertically projects, hereinafter "First Region") and a second region (where lowest surface of 80 vertically projects, hereinafter "Second Region") adjacent to and between the first region ("First Region") and a corresponding metal pattern region ("Metal Region") of the plurality of metal pattern regions;
the first surface (bottom surface of substrate 100) has a first portion (orthographic projection of "First Region" onto bottom surface of substrate 100) in the first region, a second portion (orthographic projection of "Second Region" onto bottom surface of 100) in the second region, and a third portion (orthographic projection of "Metal Region" onto bottom surface of 100) in the corresponding metal pattern region, the first portion in the first region ("First Region") is closer to the second (top) surface than the third portion in the corresponding metal pattern region ("Metal Region") ([0073], when the recess 70 is deeper into substrate 100), and the second portion in the second region ("Second Region") is not closer to the second (top) surface than the first portion in the first region ("First Region") and is not further away from the second (top) surface than the third portion in the corresponding metal pattern region ("Metal Region"); and
the substrate has a doped layer (40, [0073]-[0075]) formed in a portion of the substrate (100) corresponding to the first region ("First Region") and the second region ("Second Region"), wherein the doped layer (40) has a top (bottom surface would be the top surface if Fig. 2C is flipped) surface in the first region and the second region;
a first passivation contact structure (80, [0076]) covering the plurality of metal pattern regions ("Metal Region") of the first surface, wherein the first passivation contact structure (80) includes a plurality of first passivation contact substructures (divided into substructures by 101), and each of the plurality of first passivation contact substructures includes a first tunneling layer (13, [0073]) and a first doped conductive layer (30, [0073]) stacked in a (downwards) direction away from the substrate (100);
a plurality of first electrodes (102, [0076]) of a first polarity ([0073]-[0074]) on the first (bottom) side of the substrate, wherein each of the plurality of first electrodes (102) is electrically connected with a respective first doped conductive layer (30), and is disposed in a respective one of the plurality of metal pattern regions ("Metal Region"); and
wherein each of the plurality of non-metal pattern regions ("First Region" and "Second Region") adjoins two adjacent metal pattern regions ("Metal Region") (see marked Fig. 2C above).
Lenes does not teach a photovoltaic module, comprising: at least one cell string, wherein each of the at least one string is formed by connecting the plurality of solar cells; at least one encapsulation layer, each of the at least one encapsulation layer configured to cover a surface of a respective cell string; and at least one cover plate, each of the at least one cover plate configured to cover a surface of a respective encapsulation layer facing away from the respective cell string; and
that each of the plurality of solar cells includes a plurality of second electrodes of a second polarity opposite to the first polarity, wherein the plurality of second electrodes are disposed on the second side of the substrate, a plurality of solar cells.
In a similar field of endeavor, Stodolny teaches, in Fig. 1B, a plurality of second electrodes (10, labelled in Fig. 1A) of a second polarity ([0018]) opposite to the first polarity, wherein the plurality of second electrodes are disposed on the second side (bottom side) of the substrate (1, [0018]), in order to provide bifacial solar cells with improved efficiency ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solar cell of Lenes with the backside of the solar cell of Stodolny, in order to provide bifacial solar cells with improved efficiency ([0006]).
Lenes in view of Stodolny does not explicitly teach a plurality of solar cells, and a photovoltaic module, comprising:
at least one cell string, wherein each of the at least one string is formed by connecting the plurality of solar cells;
at least one encapsulation layer, each of the at least one encapsulation layer configured to cover a surface of a respective cell string; and
at least one cover plate, each of the at least one cover plate configured to cover a surface of a respective encapsulation layer facing away from the respective cell string.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tao teaches, in Fig. 16, a photovoltaic module ([00147]), comprising:
at least one cell string, wherein each of the at least one string is formed by connecting the plurality of solar cells (18) ([00148]);
at least one encapsulation layer (15, [0010] and [00148]), each of the at least one encapsulation layer configured to cover a surface of a respective cell string (see Fig. 16); and
at least one cover plate (13, [00148]), each of the at least one cover plate configured to cover a surface of a respective encapsulation layer (15) facing away from the respective cell string (see Fig. 16),
in order to “improve the yield of the photovoltaic module and the reliability of the photovoltaic module” ([00172]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solar cell of Lenes in view of Stodolny with the photovoltaic module of Tao, in order to improve the yield of the photovoltaic module and the reliability of the photovoltaic module.
Regarding claim 18, Lenes in view of Stodolny and Tao teaches the limitations of claim 17. Stodolny further teaches that a doped element in the first doped conductive layer (5, Fig. 1B) and a doped element in the doped layer (3, 1B) are congeners ([0013], [0023], both have a dopant of the first conductivity type), in order to “improve lateral conductivity for electron/hole transport locally, improve the series resistance, in all further improving the efficiency of a resulting photovoltaic cell” ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solar cell of Lenes with the doped elements of Stodolny, in order to “improve lateral conductivity for electron/hole transport locally, improve the series resistance, in all further improving the efficiency of a resulting photovoltaic cell” ([0013]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenes et al. (US 20180277701) in view of Stodolny et al. (US 20200287066) and Tao et al. (AU 2020226978 B1), and further in view of Ding et al. (CN 114975691 A, citations made hereinafter to the English machine translation attached to the Office Action mailed on July 3, 2025).
Regarding claim 19, Lenes in view of Stodolny and Tao teaches the limitations of claim 18. Lenes in view of Stodolny and Tao does not explicitly teach that a concentration of the doped element in the first doped conductive layer is greater than or equal to a concentration of the doped element in the doped layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ding teaches that a concentration of the doped element in the first doped conductive layer (5/41, Fig. 8) is greater than or equal to a concentration of the doped element in the doped layer (2, Fig. 8) ([0055]), so that “the battery structure is optimized and the battery efficiency is ensured by designing the doping concentration of the above-mentioned layers” ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the solar cell of Lenes in view of Stodolny and Tao with the concentrations of Ding, so that the battery structure is optimized and the battery efficiency is ensured.
Regarding claim 20, Lenes in view of Stodolny, Tao, and Ding teaches the limitations of claim 19. Ding further teaches that the concentration of the doped element in the first doped conductive layer (5/41) is in a range of 1×1019atoms/cm3 to 9×1020atoms/cm3 ([0019]), and the concentration of the doped element in the doped layer (2, Fig. 8) is in a range of 1×1016atoms/cm3 to 1×1020atoms/cm3 ([0016]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIKA HEERA SON whose telephone number is 703-756-4644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:30-9 PM ET.
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, Yara Green can be reached on 571-270-3035. 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.
/ERIKA H SON/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights