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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2018/0158976 A1) in view of Gee (US 2013/0255765 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Ahn discloses a multilayer junction photoelectric conversion element comprising (Abstract and see Fig. 4):
a first electrode (Fig. 4, 244 and 242 analogous to 144 and 142 in Fig. 1 [0091]);
a first photoactive layer including a perovskite semiconductor (260 in Fig. 2 analogous to 120, see Fig. 1, [0091][0083]) ;
a first doped layer (212 in Fig. 2 analogous to 112 in Fig. 1, [0046][0047]-[0049]);
a second photoactive layer containing silicon (211 in Fig. 2 and 111 in Fig. 1 [0093] [0046]);
a second doped layer (213 in Fig. 2 analogous to 113 in Fig. 1 [0046][0092]);
a passivation layer (260 in Fig. 2 analogous to 160 in Fig. 1, [0051][0074]-[0076]) having openings (openings are present where contacts are positioned in);
and a second electrode in this order (252 in Fig. 2 analogous to 150 in Fig. 1 [0045][0092]), wherein an interface existing between the first photoactive layer (260 in Fig. 2 analogous to 120) and an adjacent layer (any of 230/214/212) on a second photoactive layer (211 in Fig. 2 and 111 in Fig. 1) side is a substantially smooth surface. Ahn discloses “the second electrode paste may be a paste selected from an Ag paste and an Ag—Al paste. In addition, the second electrode paste may include a glass frit and an inorganic additive for fire-through, and the second temperature may be 700 °C. or higher, and more particularly, may be in a range of 700 to 1100 °C.” The instant specification indicates “The openings and the alloy layers can be formed, for example, as follows. After the passivation layer is formed on the back side surface of the second photoactive layer, a part of the passivation layer is removed using a laser or an etching paste to form the openings. A metal paste is applied to the openings and fired to form the alloy layers. The firing is preferably performed at a temperature of 600 to 1000° C. for several seconds” please see para [0107] of US 20230317377 A1 which is the publication of the instant application. Therefore, with regards to the limitation “the multilayer junction photoelectric conversion element further comprises a light scattering layer including a plurality of mutually separated silicon alloy layers that penetrate the openings of the passivation layer and electrically join the second doped layer and the second electrode” Ahn discloses the same method and structure of forming the silicon alloy layers that penetrate the passivation layer and electrical join the second doped layer and the second electrode as instantly recited.
Ahn discloses an rear side surface filed (second doped layer) is formed by directly doping ([0109]) and that the rear side surface field corresponds to the silicon substrate dopant type and the dopant type can be p-type ([0048][0049][0109]).
Gee discloses that a rear side emitter can be formed by forming an aluminum paste electrode on the back side of a p-type silicon substrate (Abstract, [0023][0028][0038]) and by forming a rear side emitter this way it results in an emitter region and also reduced contact resistance ([0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of forming the rear side emitter of Ahn by using the method as disclosed and materials as disclosed by Gee because doing so will result in reduced contact resistant and also simplify the manufacturing method by including both the contact forming step and the rear side emitter forming step in a single step.
With regards to the claim limitation of "the light scattering layer having a reflectance of 80 to 96% in the visible light region” this limitation is a material property.
Modified Ahn discloses an Al-Si alloy layer as a light scattering layer which is form in substantially the same method as described in the instant application(see paragraph [0107] of PGPub US 2023/0317377 A1 of the instant specification) as the method used by Gee (see Gee [0033]-[0042]) and is the same material as that in the instant specification (see paragraph [0108] of PGPub US 2023/0317377 A1 of the instant specification). Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
However, Ahn does not explicitly disclose wherein, with respect to a total length of the boundary line, a length of a portion where the curvature radius is within a range of 1 to 100 μm is 40% or more, or a ratio of a total area of the openings of the passivation layer to a total area of the passivation layer is 40 to 80%.
Gee does disclose that a boundary line distance 216 is generally dependent on the diameter of the contact openings 212, as well as the length of time and temperature of the heating process used to form the eutectic alloy material within the local contacts 214 ([0028]) and further discloses that the contact area can be varied to achieve the desired level of electrical connection ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the boundary line and a ratio of a total area of the openings of the passivation layer to a total area of the passivation layer of modified Ahn to have the dimensions as instantly claimed because as disclosed by Gee forming the rear side emitter regions allows for increased efficiency and the dimensions of the rear side emitter depend on both manufacturing time which effects cost and desired level of electrical connection of rear side electrode which effect both cost and solar cell efficiencies.
In addition, Gee discloses that the contact openings are formed through a laser patterning process ([0033]) and further discloses that after opening are formed a metal paste is filled into openings and fired ([0033]-[0042]).
The formation of the second doped layer in the silicon layer of Gee is substantially the same as instantly recited in the specification as follows (see paragraph [0107] of PGPub US 2023/0317377 A1 of the instant specification) “The openings and the alloy layers can be formed, for example, as follows. After the passivation layer is formed on the back side surface of the second photoactive layer, a part of the passivation layer is removed using a laser or an etching paste to form the openings. A metal paste is applied to the openings and fired to form the alloy layers. The firing is preferably performed at a temperature of 600 to 1000° C. for several seconds. The metal paste preferably contains silver or aluminum.”
With regards to the following properties of
wherein a curvature radius of a boundary line between the silicon alloy layer and the second doped layer in a cross section parallel to a lamination direction of the first photoactive layer and the second photoactive layer is not constant
wherein a shape of the silicon alloy layer is such that a curvature radius increases as closer to an apex thereof
wherein a curvature radius of a boundary line between the silicon alloy layer and the second doped layer in a cross section parallel to a lamination direction of the first photoactive layer and the second photoactive layer is different for each position at any given position of said boundary line
,since the process of Gee and the instant application are substantially similar the properties of the curvature radius of a boundary line between the silicon alloy layer and the second doped layer of modified Ahn will have same properties as instantly claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It is also noted that according to MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ahn discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Ahn discloses further comprising an intermediate transparent electrode (230 in Fig. 2 [0094] analogous to 130 in Fig. 1 [0065][0066]) between the first photoactive layer (260 in Fig. 2 analogous to 120, see Fig. 1) and the second doped layer (213 in Fig. 2 analogous to 113 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Ahn discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Ahn discloses further comprising an intermediate passivation layer (214 in Fig. 2 analogous to 114 in Fig. 1 [0053][0054]) between the intermediate transparent electrode and the second doped layer.
Regarding claim 9, modified Ahn discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Ahn discloses wherein the intermediate passivation layer contains silicon oxide ([0054]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ahn discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Ahn does not disclose a distance between the light scattering layer and the first photoactive layer is 100 to 400 μm.
The thicknesses of the layers between the light scattering layer and the first photoactive layer (perovskite absorber) include the thicknesses of the electrode layers and absorber layers of the silicon solar cell which will affect solar cell efficiency and cost.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify a distance between the light scattering layer and the first photoactive layer of Ahn to be within the claimed range because the thicknesses of the electrode layers and absorber layers of the silicon solar cell which will affect solar cell efficiency and cost.
Regarding claim 8 , Ahn discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Ahn discloses wherein the first electrode (Fig. 4, 244 and 242 analogous to 144 and 142 in Fig. 1) includes a first metal electrode layer (Fig. 4, 244 analogous to 144) in which a plurality of metal wires (grid [0071]) are arranged substantially in parallel, the intermediate passivation layer (214 in Fig. 2 analogous to 114 in Fig. 1 [0053][0054]) includes a plurality of groove-shaped openings arranged substantially in parallel, the light scattering layer includes a silicon alloy layer (See rejection above and explanation) in which a plurality of metal wires are arranged substantially in parallel (252 in Fig. 2 analogous to 150 in Fig. 1 [0092]).
However, Ahn does not disclose an average interval between the plurality of metal wires is shorter than an average interval between the plurality of openings in the intermediate passivation layer
Ahn discloses that grid electrodes patterning can affect the charge collection properties, the amount of light transmitted ([0081]), and the passivation effect ([0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the interval between the plurality of metal wires of modified Ahn to satisfy the above claimed dimension because as disclosed by Ahn doing so will allow for optimization of the charge collection properties, the amount of light transmitted, and the passivation effect.
Regarding claim 13, modified Ahn discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regards to the claim limitation of “wherein the light scattering layer has a refractive index of 1.4 to 1.8” this limitation is a material property.
Modified Ahn discloses an Al-Si alloy layer as a light scattering layer which is form in substantially the same method as described in the instant application(see paragraph [0107] of PGPub US 2023/0317377 A1 of the instant specification) as the method used by Gee (see Gee [0033]-[0042]) and is the same material as that in the instant specification (see paragraph [0108] of PGPub US 2023/0317377 A1 of the instant specification). Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US 2018/0158976 A1) in view of Gee (US 2013/0255765 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5-9, and 13 above and in further view of Khadilkar (US 2015/0007881 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ahn discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, modified Ahn does not disclose that the plurality of the silicon alloy layers formed in a linear shape.
Khadilkar discloses that laser formed contact openings used to form the plurality of the silicon alloy layers can have either a dot geometry or line geometry or a combination of both ([0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the geometry of contact openings of Ahn to include a linear groove geometry as disclosed Khadilkar because Khadilkar discloses that is an effective alternate geometry to a dot geometry to form a contact opening for an aluminum contact for a silicon solar cell.
In addition, Ahn discloses wherein the first electrode (Fig. 4, 244 and 242 analogous to 144 and 142 in Fig. 1) includes a first metal electrode layer (Fig. 4, 244 analogous to 144) in which a plurality of metal wires (grid [0071]) are arranged substantially in parallel, the intermediate passivation layer (214 in Fig. 2 analogous to 114 in Fig. 1 [0053][0054]) includes a plurality of groove-shaped openings arranged substantially in parallel, the light scattering layer includes the plurality of the silicon alloy layers formed in a linear shape arranged in parallel (See rejection above and modification with Khadilkar).
However, Ahn does not disclose an average interval between the plurality of metal wires is wider than an average interval between the plurality of the silicon alloy layers
Ahn discloses that grid electrodes patterning can affect the charge collection properties, the amount of light transmitted ([0081]), and the passivation effect ([0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the interval between the plurality of metal wires of modified Ahn to satisfy the above claimed dimension because as disclosed by Ahn doing so will allow for optimization of the charge collection properties, the amount of light transmitted, and the passivation effect.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-6 of copending Application No. 18317466 in view of Gee (US 2013/0255765 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a substantially similar multilayer photoelectric conversion element with the exception of a ratio of a total area of the openings of the passivation layer to a total area of the passivation layer is 40 to 80%.
Gee does disclose that a boundary line distance 216 is generally dependent on the diameter of the contact openings 212, as well as the length of time and temperature of the heating process used to form the eutectic alloy material within the local contacts 214 ([0028]) and further discloses that the contact area can be varied to achieve the desired level of electrical connection ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the boundary line and a ratio of a total area of the openings of the passivation layer to a total area of the passivation layer of claims 1 and 3-6 of copending Application No. 18317466 to have the dimensions as instantly claimed because as disclosed by Gee forming the rear side emitter regions allows for increased efficiency and the dimensions of the rear side emitter depend on both manufacturing time which effects cost and desired level of electrical connection of rear side electrode which effect both cost and solar cell efficiencies.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to further recite "the light scattering layer having a reflectance of 80 to 96% in the visible light region." In addition, Applicant argues Gee's disclosure of a rear-side emitter formed using aluminum paste in a silicon solar cell does not teach or suggest configuring the claimed light scattering layer to have "a reflectance of 80 to 96% in the visible light region," as recited in amended independent claim 1, or to have "a refractive index of 1.4 to 1.8," as recited in new claim 13. Thus, even if Gee were applied to Ahn for the electrical or manufacturing purposes identified by the Office, the cited combination would still fail to teach or suggest the claimed optical properties of the light scattering layer in the recited multilayer junction photoelectric conversion element.
It was noted that the amendments of "the light scattering layer having a reflectance of 80 to 96% in the visible light region" (claim 1) and "wherein the light scattering layer has a refractive index of 1.4 to 1.8" (claim 13) are material properties. Modified Ahn discloses an Al-Si alloy layer as a light scattering layer which is form in substantially the same method as described in the instant application(see paragraph [0107] of PGPub US 2023/0317377 A1 of the instant specification) as the method used by Gee (see Gee [0033]-[0042]) and is the same material as that in the instant specification (see paragraph [0108] of PGPub US 2023/0317377 A1 of the instant specification). Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Applicant further maintains that Gee does not teach or suggest the claimed curvature. In this regard, the Office relies on Gee as allegedly disclosing that "a boundary line distance 216 is generally dependent on the diameter of the contact openings 212, as well as the length of time and temperature of the heating process used to form the eutectic alloy material within the local contacts 214," and that "the contact area can be varied to achieve the desired level of electrical connection." However, these broad disclosures in Gee do not teach or even suggest that "a curvature radius of a boundary line between the silicon alloy layer and the second doped layer in a cross section parallel to a lamination direction of the first photoactive layer and the second photoactive layer is not constant," that "with respect to a total length of the boundary line, a length of a portion where the curvature radius is within a range of 1 to 100 μm is 40% or more," or that "a shape of the silicon alloy layer is such that a curvature radius increases as closer to an apex thereof," as recited in independent claim 1.
Gee discloses that the contact openings are formed through a laser patterning process ([0033]) and further discloses that after opening are formed a metal paste is filled into openings and fired ([0033]-[0042]). The formation of the second doped layer in the silicon layer of Gee is substantially the same as instantly recited in the specification as follows (see paragraph [0107] of PGPub US 2023/0317377 A1 of the instant specification) “The openings and the alloy layers can be formed, for example, as follows. After the passivation layer is formed on the back side surface of the second photoactive layer, a part of the passivation layer is removed using a laser or an etching paste to form the openings. A metal paste is applied to the openings and fired to form the alloy layers. The firing is preferably performed at a temperature of 600 to 1000° C. for several seconds. The metal paste preferably contains silver or aluminum.”
Since the process of Gee and the instant application are substantially similar the properties of the curvature radius of a boundary line between the silicon alloy layer and the second doped layer of modified Ahn will have same properties as instantly claimed. Therefore the property of "a curvature radius increases as closer to an apex thereof " is present in modified Ahn since the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With regards to the claim limitation regarding the curvature of, "a length of a portion where the curvature radius is within a range of 1 to 100 micron is 40% or more", it is noted that there is motivation provided by Gee to change the dimensions of the contact openings. Gee does disclose that a boundary line distance 216 is generally dependent on the diameter of the contact openings 212, as well as the length of time and temperature of the heating process used to form the eutectic alloy material within the local contacts 214 ([0028]). In addition, Gee discloses that the geometry of contacts effect solar cell efficiencies [0050].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the boundary line of modified Ahn to have the dimensions as instantly claimed because as disclosed by Gee forming the rear side emitter regions allows for increased efficiency and the dimensions of the rear side emitter depend on both manufacturing time which effects cost and patterning of rear side electrode which effect both cost and solar cell efficiencies.
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 DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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 T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights