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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, PCT/IL2019/051416, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Specifically the recited application fails to provide an enabling disclosure or any disclosure for the entire scope of the limitations of independent claim 1, specifically the recited application fails to provide a disclosure of the entire scope of the claim 1 limitation of “a semiconductor body, having a base region and a front region; wherein the base region is P-type silicon; wherein the front region is P-type silicon having constrained and pre-defined regions that are N-type silicon”.
Therefore, the recited Application PCT/IL2019/051416 does not provide an enabling disclosure of the entire scope of the subject matter of claims 1-2, 5-11, and 13-19 and as such these claims are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
As recited in MPEP 201.11:Any claim in a continuation-in-part application which is directed solely to subject matter adequately disclosed under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent nonprovisional application. However, if a claim in a continuation-in-part application recites a feature which was not disclosed or adequately supported by a proper disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application, but which was first introduced or adequately supported in the continuation-in-part application, such a claim is entitled only to the filing date of the continuation-in-part application; In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Van Lagenhoven, 458 F.2d 132, 136, 173 USPQ 426, 429 (CCPA 1972); and Chromalloy American Corp. v. Alloy Surfaces Co., Inc., 339 F. Supp. 859, 874, 173 USPQ 295, 306 (D. Del. 1972).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 5-11, and 13-19 are presently under consideration as amended in applicant’s response filed 09 September 2025. Claims 3-4, 12, and 20-41 are cancelled by applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the prior art anticipation rejection of claims 1-2, 12-14, and 17-20 under Hoof et al (NL 2006171C2) and these rejections are thus withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the indefiniteness rejections of the claims of record, and these rejections are thus withdrawn.
The further prior art rejections of record are updated in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims to show where the limitations are taught, or are otherwise maintained.
Applicant’s arguments and remarks where applicable are addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cesar (US 2014/0299186) and further in view of Albalak et al (WO 2020/136653 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Cesar discloses a flexible Photovoltaic (PV) cell, comprising:
a semiconductor body, having a base region and a front region ([0020]-[0021], Figs. 1 and 3 see: silicon semiconductor substrate 10 having a base region and further regions 18a, b);
wherein the base region is P-type silicon ([0020]-[0021], Figs. 1 and 3 see: silicon semiconductor substrate 10 which can be p-type);
wherein the front region is P-type silicon having constrained and pre-defined regions that are N-type silicon ([0020]-[0021], [0025]-[0026], Figs. 1 and 3 see: further regions 18a, b where further regions 18a have the first conductivity type, i.e. the same conductivity type as semiconductor substrate 10 and constrain Second further regions 18b have the second conductivity type, i.e. the same conductivity type as emitter regions 14 (n-type)).
Furthermore, regarding the claim 1 recitation to a “flexible” Photovoltaic (PV) cell when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “flexible” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Alternatively, Cesar teaches the silicon semiconductor substrate 10 can have a thickness D as thin as 0.01 micrometers and more preferably from 1-200 micrometers (para [0021]) and thus is considered to have some degree of mechanical flexibility.
Cesar does not explicitly disclose wherein the base region has non-transcending trenches that penetrate into between 50 to 99 percent of a total thickness of the semiconductor body, and that do not penetrate into an entirety of the total thickness of the semiconductor body; wherein said non-transcending trenches in the base region increase flexibility and mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption of flexible said PV cell.
Albalak further teaches providing a flexible PV cell with non-transcending trenches that penetrate into between 50 to 99 percent of a total thickness of a base region or semiconductor body, and that do not penetrate into an entirety of the total thickness of the base region or semiconductor body (Albalak, Abstract, [00161], [00179] Figs. 8A-8B, 9B-9C see: semiconductor wafer/base region with a gaps or craters as trenches that penetrate at least 50 percent and not more than 99 percent of the thickness of said wafer); wherein said non-transcending trenches in the base region increase flexibility and mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption of flexible said PV cell (Albalak, [0036], [0049], [0051], see: the gaps also include an elastic filling material and impart the cell with improved flexibility, and mechanical shock absorption).
Albalak and Cesar are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of solar cells.
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the solar cell of Cesar in view of Albalak such that the solar cell comprises non-transcending trenches that penetrate into between 50 to 99 percent of a total thickness of the semiconductor body, and that do not penetrate into an entirety of the total thickness of the base region or semiconductor body as in Albalak (Albalak, Abstract, [00161], [00179] Figs. 8A-8B, 9B-9C see: semiconductor wafer/base region with a gaps or craters as trenches that penetrate at least 50 percent and not more than 99 percent of the thickness of said wafer) as Albalak teaches such non-transcending trenches in the base region or semiconductor body increase flexibility and mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption of said flexible PV cell (Albalak, [0036], [0049], [0051], see: the gaps also include an elastic filling material and impart the cell with improved flexibility, and mechanical shock absorption).
Regarding claim 2 modified Cesar discloses the flexible PV cell according to claim 1, wherein the base region is native P-type silicon ([0020]-[0021], Figs. 1 and 3 see: silicon semiconductor substrate 10 which can be p-type);
wherein the pre-defined regions that are N-type silicon, in the front region, are pre-defined regions of bulk silicon (i) that were initially doped to become P-type regions as part of the P-type silicon bulk, and (ii) that subsequently were doped to become N-type regions ([0062], [0020]-[0021], [0025]-[0026], Figs. 1 and 3 see: Second further regions 18b have the second conductivity type, i.e. the same conductivity type as emitter regions 14 (n-type) and are formed through locally added n-type dopants in the p-typer substrate).
Cesar is silent to the p-type dopant being boron and the n-type dopant being phosphorus.
Albalak further teaches boron as a well-known p-type dopant and phosphorous as a well-known n-type dopant for silicon solar cells ([0028], [00148]).
Albalak and Cesar are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of solar cells.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the solar cell of Cesar in view of Albalak such that the p-type dopant in the solar cell of Cesar is boron and the n-type dopant used is phosphorus as in Albalak ([0028], [00148]) as such a selection would have amounted to the use of well-known p-type and n-type silicon dopants for their intended use in a known environment of a silicon solar cell to accomplish an entirely expected result of providing p-type and n-type doping within the solar cell.
Regarding claim 5 modified Cesar discloses the flexible PV cell according to claim 1, and Albalak teaches wherein at least some of said non-transcending trenches contain a filler material having mechanical force absorption properties, which provides mechanical shock absorption properties to said flexible PV cell (Albalak, [0036], [0049], [0051], see: the gaps also include an elastic filling material and impart the cell with improved flexibility, and mechanical shock absorption).
Regarding claim 7 modified Cesar discloses the flexible PV cell according to claim 1, and Albalak teaches wherein each trench is tapered inwardly and is generally V-shaped or U-shaped ([00113], Fig. 8 see: U or V shaped tapered trenches).
Regarding claim 8 modified Cesar discloses the flexible PV cell according to claim 7, and regarding the claim 8 limitation “wherein a width value of the widest opening of each trench is in a range of 30 microns to 50 microns” Albalak teaches the width of the trenches is in a range of 10 to 50 percent of the thickness of said single wafer or in a range of 10 to 25 percent of the thickness of said single wafer (paras [00180]-[00181]) and teaches the wafer thicknesses are sub-200 micron thicknesses (para [00155]) and thus trench widths are broadly 20 microns to 100 microns or 20 microns to 50 microns each of which entirely encompasses applicant’s claimed range.
It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 10 modified Cesar discloses the flexible PV cell according to claim 1, wherein the front region, which comprises said pre-defined N-type silicon regions, also has a set of additional trenches which is taught by Albalak, that penetrate inwardly through an entirety of a depth of the N-type regions and further penetrate into some, but not all, of the thickness of the P-type base region; wherein trenches that penetrate downwardly into the pre-defined N-type silicon regions, do not meet with trenches that penetrate upwardly into the P-type silicon layer (Albalak, [00137], Figs. 9C-9D see: wafer having trenches in both front and rear surfaces).
Regarding claim 11 modified Cesar discloses the flexible PV cell according to claim 10, wherein at least some of the trenches that penetrate into the front region that comprises said pre-defined N-type silicon regions, contain a trench filler material that is configured to increase mechanical resilience and mechanical forces absorption properties of said PV cell (Albalak, [0036], [0049], [0051], [00137] Fig. 9D see: the gaps (trenches) in the rear surface also include an elastic filling material and impart the cell with improved flexibility, and mechanical shock absorption).
Regarding claim 13 modified Cesar discloses the flexible PV cell according to claim 1, wherein the front region is covered by a pre-defined pattern of discrete, metallized, electrical finger contacts, which comprises:
generally parallel rows of discrete, metallized, electrical finger contacts ([0025]-[0026], [0059], Figs. 1, 3, 7 see: n-type Second further regions 18b have conductor lines 70 arranged in parallel rows and columns);
wherein each pair of two adjacent rows of electrical finger contacts, are spaced-apart by a row of non-metallized surface region ([0025]-[0026], [0059], Figs. 1, 3, 7 see: each pair of two adjacent rows of conductor lines 70 spaced apart by a row of non-metallized surface regions of 18a, 18b);
wherein each pair of two adjacent electrical finger contacts, are spaced-apart by a column of non-metallized surface region ([0025]-[0026], [0059], Figs. 1, 3, 7 see: each pair of conductor lines 70 spaced apart by a column of p-type further regions 18a).
Regarding claim 16 modified Cesar discloses the flexible PV cell according to claim 13, wherein said pre-defined pattern of discrete, metallized, electrical finger contacts, excludes and does not include any elongated metal wire that runs from a first edge of the PV cell to a second, opposite, edge of the PV cell ([0025]-[0026], [0059], Figs. 1, 3, 7 see: conductor lines 70 do not extend all the way across the PV cell); and
comprises dashed segments of metallized contacts that are spaced apart from each other ([0025]-[0026], [0059], Figs. 1, 3, 7 see: conductor lines 70 as dashed or spaced apart line segments).
Cesar does not explicitly disclose wherein a length of each discrete, spaced apart, metallized contact is smaller than 10 percent of a total length of the PV cell, but Cesar does teach the loss of incoming light and resistance losses are variables that can be modified by varying the dimensions of the metallized contacts ([0059]-[0060]).
As such, the loss of incoming light and resistance losses are a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the dimensions (including varying the length) of the metallized contacts. For that reason, the length of the metallized contacts, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the length of the metallized contacts cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the length of the metallized contacts in the device of Cesar to obtain the desired reduction in loss of incoming light and resistance losses (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cesar (US 2014/0299186) in view of Albalak et al (WO 2020/136653 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, and 16 above, and further in view of Hayashi et al (US 5,290,367) and further in view of Rubin et al (US 2007/0199588).
Regarding claim 6 modified Cesar discloses the flexible PV cell according to claim 2,
and regarding the claim 6 limitation “wherein the base region is a P-type silicon having a particular thickness in a range of 100 to 250 microns” Cesar teaches the silicon semiconductor substrate 10 can have a thickness D preferably from 1-200 micrometers (para [0021]) which substantially overlaps the claimed thickness range.
It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Cesar further teaches wherein the front region is a silicon layer and comprises said N-type silicon regions that are scattered among P-type silicon regions located at a same plane ([0020]-[0021], [0025]-[0026], Figs. 1 and 3 see: further regions 18a, b where n-type Second further regions 18b are scattered between p-type first further regions 18a)
Cesar does not explicitly disclose wherein the flexible PV cell is a Passivated Emitter and Rear Contact (PERC) PV cell or wherein the front region has a thickness in a range of 0.3 to 0.5 microns.
Hayashi teaches a solar cell having a Passivated Emitter and Rear Contact (PERC) PV cell structure (Hayashi, C4/L10-12, C8/L1-7, Figs. 1A-1B see: p-type silicon first region 10 having surface emitter second regions 20 of n-type silicon passivated with barrier layer 30 of silicon oxide or silicon nitride and rear contact layer of p-type high-concentration impurity regions 70 with barrier layer 60 and second layer 60).
Hayashi and Cesar are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of solar cells.
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the solar cell of Cesar in view of Hayashi such that the solar cell of Cesar further comprises a Passivated Emitter and Rear Contact (PERC) PV cell structure as in Hayashi (Hayashi, C4/L10-12, C8/L1-7, Figs. 1A-1B see: p-type silicon first region 10 having surface emitter second regions 20 of n-type silicon passivated with barrier layer 30 of silicon oxide or silicon nitride and rear contact layer of p-type high-concentration impurity regions 70 with barrier layer 60 and second layer 60) as such a modification would have amounted to the addition of surface passivation layers to the emitter and rear contact of Cesar the purpose of passivating these surfaces to reduce surface recombination.
Furthermore, Rubin teaches where front region n-type emitter layers are formed with a thickness in a range of approximately about 0.3 to about 0.6 micrometers (Rubin, [0082] Figs. 1-4 see: n-type region 12 has a thickness of approximately about 0.3 to about 0.6 micrometers).
Rubin and Cesar are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of solar cells.
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the solar cell of Cesar in view of Rubin such that the front region n-type emitter layers are formed with a thickness in a range of approximately about 0.3 to about 0.6 micrometers as in Rubin (Rubin, [0082] Figs. 1-4 see: n-type region 12 has a thickness of approximately about 0.3 to about 0.6 micrometers) as such a modification would have amounted to the selection of a known emitter thickness for its intended purpose in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Furthermore, the thickness range of approximately about 0.3 to about 0.6 micrometers of Rubin entirely encompasses the claimed thickness range of 0.3 to 0.5 microns.
It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cesar (US 2014/0299186) in view of Albalak et al (WO 2020/136653 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, and 16 above, and further in view of De Ceuster et al (US 2011/0059571)
Regarding claim 9 modified Cesar discloses the flexible PV cell according to claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose wherein exposed surfaces of each trench are doped with boron or phosphorus to reduce recombination at, or in proximity to, said exposed surfaces. However, De Ceuster teaches it was known to provide such doping to form a passivation region is trenches in silicon solar cells (De Ceuster, [0033]-[0035] Fig. 1 see: providing phosphorus doping in trench 104 to form passivation region 112 comprising an N-type passivation region).
De Ceuster and Cesar are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of solar cells.
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the solar cell of Cesar in view of De Ceuster such that exposed surfaces of each trench are doped with boron or phosphorus to reduce recombination at, or in proximity to, said exposed surfaces as in De Ceuster (De Ceuster, [0033]-[0035] Fig. 1 see: providing phosphorus doping in trench 104 to form passivation region 112 comprising an N-type passivation region) for the express purpose of reducing such surface recombination.
Regarding claim 19 modified Cesar discloses the flexible PV cell according to claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least some of said discrete, metallized, electrical finger contacts are contacts that penetrate through particularly-placed openings in a dielectric coating layer. However De Ceuster teaches providing such electrical contacts penetrating through particularly-placed openings in a dielectric coating layer (De Ceuster, [0037], [0039] Fig. 2 see: metal contact fingers 108 or 109 formed through openings in silicon nitride passivation layer 107).
De Ceuster and Cesar are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of solar cells.
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the solar cell of Cesar in view of De Ceuster such that at least some of said discrete, metallized, electrical finger contacts of Cesar are contacts that penetrate through particularly-placed openings in a dielectric coating layer as in De Ceuster (De Ceuster, [0037], [0039] Fig. 2 see: metal contact fingers 108 or 109 formed through openings in silicon nitride passivation layer 107) in order to further provide surface passivation with said dielectric coating layer as in De Ceuster (De Ceuster, [0037], [0039]).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cesar (US 2014/0299186) in view of Albalak et al (WO 2020/136653 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, and 16 above, and further in view of Albalak et al (WO 2020/136653 A1) and further in view of Hoof et al (NL 2006171C2).
Regarding claim 14 modified Cesar discloses the flexible PV cell according to claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose wherein each row of non-metallized surface region, that spaces-apart each pair of two adjacent rows of electrical finger contacts, has a plurality of non-transcending trenches that penetrate into some, but not all, of a semiconductor layer of the PV cell; wherein each column of non-metallized surface region, that spaces-apart each pair of two adjacent electrical finger contacts, has a plurality of non-transcending trenches that penetrate into some, but not all, of said semiconductor layer of the PV cell.
Albalak teaches a flexible PV cell having rows of non-metallized surface region and columns of non-metallized surface regions each having a plurality of non-transcending trenches that penetrate into some, but not all, of said semiconductor layer of the PV cell (Albalak, Abstract, [00161], [00179] Figs. 8A-8B, 9B-9C see: semiconductor wafer/base region with a gaps or craters as trenches that penetrate not more than 99 percent of the thickness of said wafer). Albalak teaches this provides a PV cell array of micro PV cells and increases flexibility and mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption of flexible said PV cell (Albalak, Abstract, [0036], [0049], [0051], see: the gaps divide the wafer into a PV cell array of micro PV cells and include an elastic filling material and impart the cell with improved flexibility, and mechanical shock absorption).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the solar cell of Cesar in view of Albalak such that the solar cell comprises rows of non-metallized surface region and columns of non-metallized surface regions each having a plurality of non-transcending trenches that penetrate into some, but not all, of said semiconductor layer of the PV cell as in Albalak (Albalak, Abstract, [00161], [00179] Figs. 8A-8B, 9B-9C see: semiconductor wafer/base region with a gaps or craters as trenches that penetrate not more than 99 percent of the thickness of said wafer) as Albalak teaches this provides a PV cell array of micro PV cells and increases flexibility and mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption of flexible said PV cell (Albalak, Abstract, [0036], [0049], [0051], see: the gaps divide the wafer into a PV cell array of micro PV cells and include an elastic filling material and impart the cell with improved flexibility, and mechanical shock absorption).
Additionally Hoof further teaches for a solar cell divided into such a plurality of subcells, wherein each row of non-metallized surface region, that spaces-apart each pair of two adjacent rows of electrical finger contacts, has a plurality of non-transcending trenches that penetrate into some, but not all, of a semiconductor layer of the PV cell (Page 23/Lines 6-25, Figs. 7-8 see: adjacent grids of conductors 41, 50 each grid equivalent to a recited “electrical finger contact” as the claimed “electrical finger contacts” are open to shapes other than single linear segments are spaced by rows of non-metallized trench subdivisions 151);
wherein each column of non-metallized surface region, that spaces-apart each pair of two adjacent electrical finger contacts, has a plurality of non-transcending trenches that penetrate into some, but not all, of said semiconductor layer of the PV cell (Page 23/Lines 6-25, Figs. 7-8 see: adjacent grids of conductors 41, 50 each grid equivalent to a recited “electrical finger contact” are spaced by columns of non-metallized trench subdivisions 151).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the solar cell of Cesar in view of Hoof such that each row of non-metallized surface region, that spaces-apart each pair of two adjacent rows of electrical finger contacts, has a plurality of non-transcending trenches that penetrate into some, but not all, of a semiconductor layer of the PV cell as in Hoof (Page 23/Lines 6-25, Figs. 7-8 see: adjacent grids of conductors 41, 50 each grid equivalent to a recited “electrical finger contact” as the claimed “electrical finger contacts” are open to shapes other than single linear segments are spaced by rows of non-metallized trench subdivisions 151); and wherein each column of non-metallized surface region, that spaces-apart each pair of two adjacent electrical finger contacts, has a plurality of non-transcending trenches that penetrate into some, but not all, of said semiconductor layer of the PV cell as in Hoof (Page 23/Lines 6-25, Figs. 7-8 see: adjacent grids of conductors 41, 50 each grid equivalent to a recited “electrical finger contact” are spaced by columns of non-metallized trench subdivisions 151) as such a modification would have amounted to the selection of a known surface electrode structure for a sub-cell in a sub-cell array.
Regarding claim 15 modified Cesar discloses the flexible PV cell according to claim 14, and Hoof further teaches wherein segmentation grooves run along each row of non-metallized surface region, that spaces-apart each pair of two adjacent rows of electrical finger contacts (Page 23/Lines 6-25, Figs. 7-8 see: adjacent grids of conductors 41, 50 each grid equivalent to a recited “electrical finger contact” are spaced by rows of non-metallized trench subdivisions 151);
wherein segmentation grooves run along each column of non-metallized surface region, that spaces-apart each pair of two adjacent electrical finger contacts (Page 23/Lines 6-25, Figs. 7-8 see: adjacent grids of conductors 41, 50 each grid equivalent to a recited “electrical finger contact” are spaced by columns of non-metallized trench subdivisions 151);
wherein segmentation grooves do not penetrate through any electrical finger contacts (Page 23/Lines 6-25, Figs. 7-8 see: subdivisions 151 do not penetrate the conductors 41, 50).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cesar (US 2014/0299186) in view of Albalak et al (WO 2020/136653 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, and 16 above, and further in view of Hanawa et al (US 2013/0233386).
Regarding claims 17 and 18 modified Cesar discloses the flexible PV cell according to claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least some of said discrete, metallized, electrical finger contacts, have a shape other than a shape of a single linear segment or wherein at least some of said discrete, metallized, electrical finger contacts, have a shape selected from the group consisting of: Z-shape, V-shape, U-shape, O-shape, M-shape, W-shape, H-shape, S-shape, 5-Shape, star shape, asterisk shape.
Hanawa teaches PV cell electrodes having a shape other than a shape of a single linear segment and being of a U-shape (Hanawa, [0178] Figs. 2-3 see: U-shaped minus electrode 15a).
Hanawa and Cesar are combinable as they are both concerned with the field of solar cells.
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the solar cell of Cesar in view of Hanawa such that at least some of said discrete, metallized, electrical finger contacts, have a shape other than a shape of a single linear segment and being of a U-shape as in Hanawa (Hanawa, [0178] Figs. 2-3 see: U-shaped minus electrode 15a) as such a modification would have amounted to the mere selection of a known surface electrode shape for its intended use in the known environment of a solar cell to accomplish the entirely expected result of collecting current. Furthermore it has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the reference of Albalak et al (WO 2020/136653A1) a publication of PCT/IL2019/051416 is not available as prior art as applicant claims priority to PCT/IL2019/051416.
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but is not found persuasive. As recited in the above section under “Priority” the disclosure of the prior-filed application, PCT/IL2019/051416, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Specifically the recited application fails to provide an enabling disclosure or any disclosure for the entire scope of the limitations of independent claim 1, in particular the limitation of “a semiconductor body, having a base region and a front region; wherein the base region is P-type silicon; wherein the front region is P-type silicon having constrained and pre-defined regions that are N-type silicon”.
A review of PCT/IL2019/051416 shows no support for this language in the disclosure. PCT/IL2019/051416 at most discusses negatively doping (n-type) the top of a p-type silicon base (para [00148]) and a bottom view of a semiconductor body with n-type and p-type doped regions (Figs. 6A-6B, paras [0017] and [00135]) but does not disclose or provide adequate support for “wherein the front region is P-type silicon having constrained and pre-defined regions that are N-type silicon”.
Therefore, the recited Application PCT/IL2019/051416 does not provide an enabling disclosure of the entire scope of the subject matter of claims 1-2, 5-11, and 13-19 and as such these claims are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
As recited in MPEP 201.11:Any claim in a continuation-in-part application which is directed solely to subject matter adequately disclosed under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the parent nonprovisional application. However, if a claim in a continuation-in-part application recites a feature which was not disclosed or adequately supported by a proper disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 112 in the parent nonprovisional application, but which was first introduced or adequately supported in the continuation-in-part application, such a claim is entitled only to the filing date of the continuation-in-part application; In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 36 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Van Lagenhoven, 458 F.2d 132, 136, 173 USPQ 426, 429 (CCPA 1972); and Chromalloy American Corp. v. Alloy Surfaces Co., Inc., 339 F. Supp. 859, 874, 173 USPQ 295, 306 (D. Del. 1972).
Furthermore, the examiner notes the newly amended limitations of claim 1 are also disclosed by Masuda et al (US 2014/0305504) cited in IDS filed 08 September 2025 which teaches a base region having non-transcending trenches that penetrate into between 50 to 99 percent of a total thickness of a semiconductor body, and that do not penetrate into an entirety of the total thickness of the semiconductor body ([0029], Fig. 2 see: grooves 7 with a depth t of about 100 µm in a 150 µm thick power generation layer 1); wherein said non-transcending trenches in the base region increase flexibility and mechanical resilience and mechanical shock absorption of flexible said PV cell (para [0049] and Fig. 9). Masuda also teaches where the semiconductor body has a base region that is P-type silicon (Abstract, [0047], Figs. 5, 7 see: adjoining regions 1a of a p-type monocrystalline semiconductor (silicon)); wherein the front region is P-type silicon having constrained and pre-defined regions that are N-type silicon (Abstract, [0038], [0042], see: front surface is p-type with constrained high concentration doped layers 12 of n-type impurities (Fig. 5) or n+ type diffusion layers 13b constrained by p+ type diffusion layers 13a (Fig. 7)).
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 ANDREW J GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7935. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-8pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
ANDREW J. GOLDEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/ANDREW J GOLDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726