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 .
Summary
This is the response to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 02/09/2026.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-16 and 20-21 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 12, 15-16 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN114613866 with provided machine English translation) in view of Yoshikawa et al. (US 2018/0083152) and Chen (CN 115513338 with provided machine English translation).
Addressing claim 1, Li discloses a hybrid solar battery (fig. 3) comprising a first surface (upper surface) and a second surface (the lower surface) opposing to each other, wherein the first surface is a light-facing surface of the hybrid solar battery, and the second surface is a backlight surface of the hybrid solar battery (fig. 3), wherein the hybrid solar battery comprises:
a silicon substrate 1 (paragraph [n0046] of the translation document);
a tunneling layer 2 located between the silicon substrate and the first surface (fig. 3); and
an intrinsic amorphous silicon layer 5 located between the silicon substrate and the second surface (fig. 3);
a first doped layer 3 located between the tunneling layer 2 and the first surface, wherein the first doped layer comprises a doped polysilicon [n0046];
a dielectric layer (anti-reflection layer 4 made of insulating materials, [n0052]) located on an outermost layer close to the first surface (fig. 3);
a first electrode 81 and a negative electrode 82 which are positioned on the first surface and the second surface respectively (fig. 3), wherein the dielectric layer locates on and/or above the first electrode (fig. 3), and the dielectric layer comprises an opening (fig. 3 shows the dielectric layer 4 includes an opening through which the first electrode protrudes).
Li is silent regarding a first conductive layer located between the first doped layer and the dielectric layer, the dielectric layer covers part of top surface of the first electrode, and a width of the opening is greater than a width of a welding point on the first electrode.
Chen discloses a front TCO layer 8 is located between the first doped layer 4 and the first surface (upper surface) as shown in fig. 9. The TCO layer 8 has thicknesses in paragraph [n0120] that fall within the claimed range.
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the solar battery of Li with the front TCO layer 8 between the first doped layer and the first surface as disclosed by Chen in order to provide suitable energy band adaptation thereby improving photoelectric conversion efficiency (Chen, [n0116]).
Yoshikawa discloses a solar battery comprising a dielectric layer 8 located on the outermost layer close to the upper surface, the dielectric layer 8 locates on and above the first electrode 9, the dielectric layer 8 comprises an opening, and the dielectric layer covers part of top surface of the first electrode 9 (annotated fig. 5 below shows the dielectric layer 8 covers the peripheral parts of the top surface of the first electrode 9; indeed, paragraphs [0073-0078] describe the opening is locally formed on the first electrode 9 to establish connection between the electrode 9 and the interconnector 3 via the metallic material 31, which has a width that is smaller than the width of the upper surface of the first electrode 9 as shown in fig. 5; therefore, it is implicitly disclosed by Yoshikawa that the dielectric layer covers part of the top surface of the first electrode). Yoshikawa further discloses the interconnector 3 is connected to the first electrode 9 through the opening via welding [0080], which qualifies the metallic material formed within the opening as the welding point.
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the solar battery of Li with the dielectric layer covering the top surface of the first electrode with an opening to form electrical connection with an interconnector as disclosed by Yoshikawa in order to interconnect a plurality of solar cells to increase the power output of the solar battery module with long-term reliability and small optical loss (Yoshikawa, [0009-0010]).
With regard to the limitation “a width of the opening is greater than a width of a welding point on the first electrode”, as discussed above, the contact point between the metallic material 31 and the first electrode 9 to establish welding contact [0080] corresponds to the claimed welding point. Yoshikawa implicitly discloses that the welding point has a width that is smaller than the width of the opening within which the welding material 31 is positioned in order for the welding material 31 to be deposited within the opening; in other words, if the width of the welding material 31 is greater than the width of the opening, the welding material would not be able to be fitted within the opening in the manner shown in fig. 5 of Yoshikawa. Alternatively, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the solar battery of Li in view of Yoshikawa by configuring the width of the welding material 31, which corresponds to the claimed with of the welding point, to be smaller than the width of the opening in order for the welding material 31 to be fitted within the opening in the manner shown in fig. 5 of Yoshikawa.
Addressing claim 3, Li discloses in paragraph [n0048] the tunneling layer is made of silicon oxide with a thickness from 1-3nm.
Addressing claim 4, Li discloses in paragraph [n0049] the doped polysilicon layer has a thickness between 70 nm to 250 nm (the combined thicknesses of the first doped polysilicon layer 31 and the second doped polysilicon layer 32).
Addressing claim 5, Li discloses the doped polysilicon is doped with phosphorous to have n-type conductivity. Lie is silent regarding the doped polysilicon contains at least one element among oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen.
Chen discloses an n-type doped polysilicon layer that includes carbon [n0085-n0087].
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the doped polysilicon of Li with carbon material disclosed by Chen in order to reduce resistance, improves conductivity, increase corrosion resistance and improve passivation performance (Chen, [n0008]).
Addressing claims 7 and 16, Chen discloses a front TCO layer 8 is located between the first doped layer 4 and the first surface (upper surface) as shown in fig. 9. The TCO layer 8 has thicknesses in paragraph [n0120] that fall within the claimed range.
Addressing claim 9, Li discloses in paragraph [n0052] the dielectric layer 4 is made of the claimed material with thickness that falls within the claimed range.
Addressing claim 12, Li discloses a second doped layer (doped amorphous layer 6) located between the intrinsic amorphous silicon layer 5 and the second surface, wherein a thickness of the second doped layer is 5-10 nm [n0050] that falls within the claimed range.
Addressing claims 15 and 21, Li discloses the transparent conductive layer with a thickness between 70-120 nm [n0050] as the claimed second conductive layer located in the claimed position.
Addressing claim 20, in the modified invention Li in view of Yoshikawa and Chen, the plurality of interconnected solar batteries via the interconnector 3 correspond to the claimed photovoltaic module.
Claim(s) 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN114613866 with provided machine English translation) in view of Yoshikawa et al. (US 2018/0083152) and Chen (CN 115513338 with provided machine English translation) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7, 12, 15-16 and 20-21 above, and further in view of Fujita et al. (US 2019/006534).
Addressing claim 6, Li is silent regarding the limitation of current claim.
Fujita discloses a hybrid solar battery having tunneling layer similarly to that of Li; wherein, the solar battery further comprises a diffusion surface region 11a located on the silicon substrate 11A, the diffusion surface region 11a is below the tunneling layer 12, wherein a doping type of the diffusion surface region is the same as the first doped layer (paragraph [0031] discloses the first doped layer 13 is doped with phosphorus to have n-type conductivity and paragraph [0053] discloses the diffusion surface region 11a is also doped with phosphorus to have n-type conductivity), and a doping concentration of the diffusion surface region is less than the first doped layer (paragraph [0054] discloses the phosphorus concentration in the diffusion surface region 11a is between 1017 to 1020 atoms/cm3 and paragraph [0031] discloses the phosphorus concentration in the first doped layer 13 is between 3x1020 to 5x1021 atoms/cm3, which meets the claimed limitation).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the solar battery of Li with the diffusion surface region having the characteristics disclosed by Fujita in order to improve the output characteristics of the solar cell battery (Fujita, [0053]).
Addressing claim 11, Li discloses the intrinsic amorphous silicon layer 5 in paragraph [n0053] having a thickness that falls within the claimed range.
Li is silent regarding the intrinsic amorphous silicon layer contains at least one element among oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.
Fujita discloses the intrinsic amorphous silicon layer 16 [0034-0035] positioned between the silicon substrate 11 and the second surface similarly to that of Li; wherein, the intrinsic amorphous layer includes oxygen [0035].
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify solar battery of Li by substituting the known intrinsic amorphous silicon material with the known oxygen containing amorphous silicon material disclosed by Fujita in order to inhibits recombination of carriers on the rear surface side of the cell (Fujita, [0034]).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN114613866 with provided machine English translation) in view of Yoshikawa et al. (US 2018/0083152) and Chen (CN 115513338 with provided machine English translation) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7, 12, 15-16 and 20-21 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2024/0079511).
Addressing claims 13-14, Li discloses a second doped layer (doped amorphous layer 6) located between the intrinsic amorphous silicon layer 5 and the second surface and the doping type of the doped amorphous layer 6 is opposite to the silicon substrate [n0056].
Li is silent regarding the second doped layer contains at least one element among oxygen, carbon and nitrogen.
Paragraph [0059] of Lin discloses the P-type oxygen-doped microcrystalline silicon layer 8, which contains the claimed microcrystalline silicon film contains oxygen. Paragraph [0064] discloses the silicon wafer 1 is made of N-type monocrystalline material, which is opposite to the second doped layer.
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the back doping layer of Li with the P-type oxygen doped microcrystalline silicon layer of Lin in order to expands the optical band gap to prevent serious light absorption of an amorphous P-layer (Lin, [0021]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
With regard to the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 12, 15-16 and 20-21 as being unpatentable over the disclosure of Li, Yoshikawa and Chen, the Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons:
The Applicants argued that there is a technical barrier between Li’s patent document and Chen’s patent document and those skilled in the art cannot simply place Chen’s front TCO layer (8) in Li’s solar cell. The technical barrier, according to the Applicants, is due to the structural differences between Li’s solar cell and Chen’s solar cell. The argument is not persuasive because it appears that the Applicants have overstated the structural differences between the Li’s solar cell and Chen’s solar cell to support the alleged technical barrier. It is noted that the solar cells of Li and Chen are more similar than they are different. Specifically, both solar cells include a silicon substrate 1 (fig. 1 of Li and fig. 10 of Chen), a tunneling layer 2 positioned on the upper surface of the silicon substrate (Li fig. 1, Chen fig. 10), a doped polysilicon layer (layer 3 for Li and layer 4 for Chen) positioned on the tunneling layer 2 (Li fig. 1, Chen fig. 10), an intrinsic amorphous silicon layer (layer 5 for Li, layer 6 for Chen) positioned on the back surface of the silicon substrate, a doped layer (layer 6 for Li and layer 7 for Chen) positioned on the lower surface of the intrinsic amorphous silicon layer (fig.1 of Li and fig. 10 of Chen), a TCO layer (layer 7 for Li and layer 9 for Chen) positioned on the lower surface of the back doped layer (fig. 1 of Li and fig. 10 of Chen). Based on the above similarities, the preponderance of evidence indicates that there is little technical barrier between the solar cell of Li and Chen that would deter one of ordinary skill in the art from incorporating the TCO layer of Chen on the first doped layer of Li, especially when Chen explicitly teaches that the TCO layer provides suitable energy band adaptation thereby improving photoelectric conversion efficiency (Chen, [n0116]), which ultimately is the goal of solar cell design.
The Applicants further argued that adding the front TCO layer to Li’s solar cells would have a direct negative impact on the technical effect that Li aims to achieve because the TCO layer would increase the thickness of the solar cell, which will “significantly reduce the absorption and conversion of incident light, thereby weakening the technical effect that Li’s solar cell aims to achieve”. The argument is not persuasive because it is not supported by any evidence showing that the inclusion of the TCO layer would “significantly reduce the absorption and conversion of incident light”. The passage in paragraph [0049] of Li that is cited by the Applicants is drawn to the thickness of the doped layer, which has nothing to do with the TCO layer. Furthermore, the reduction in light absorption is associated with the layer 32, according to the cited paragraph. The cited paragraph does not attribute the reduction in light absorption to the thickness of the solar cell as a whole; therefore, the disclosure in the cited paragraph has no bearing on the inclusion of the TCO layer of Chen in the solar cell of Li, especially when the Applicants’ assertion is not supported by any evidence.
The Applicants further argued that since Li discloses the TCO layer on the back surface and not on the light receiving surface, the absence of the TCO layer on the front surface “confirms that, for the sake of reducing film thickness, a transparent conductive layer cannot be disposed on the light-facing side of Li’s solar cell”. The argument is not persuasive because it is again not supported by any evidence. The absence of the TCO layer on the light-receiving surface does not mean Li teaches away from the inclusion of the TCO on the light receiving surface. To the contrary, Chen, whose solar cell has many structural similarities to that of Li, teaches that the inclusion of the TCO layer on the light receiving surface improves photoelectric conversion efficiency. Therefore, the preponderance of evidence indicates that the inclusion of the TCO layer disclosed by Chen on the light receiving surface of Li’s solar cell would improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency. The Applicants have not provided any evidence related to the TCO layer that indicates the inclusion of the TCO layer of Chen in Li’s solar cell would have a negative effect.
The Applicants further argued that Yoshida (it is noted that the cited teaching is Yoshikawa, not Yoshida) does not disclose the opening in the claimed manner because “in claim 1, the solar cell has a partially exposed opening after the welding strip is installed. Clearly, the solar cell of claim 1 is completely different from Yoshida’s solar cell in terms of opening design, and the technical problems it aims to solve are also different”. The argument is not persuasive because it is not drawn to the claimed limitation. Particularly, the claim does not require the opening to be partially exposed after the welding strip is installed. The claim requires the dielectric layer comprises an opening, which is disclosed by Yoshikawa, and the dielectric layer covers part of top surface of the first electrode, which is also disclosed by Yoshikawa, and a width of the opening is greater than a width of a welding point on the first electrode, which is implicitly disclosed by Yoshikawa as discussed above and is not contested by the Applicants. Therefore, Yoshikawa discloses all of the structural requirements in terms of the presence of the opening in the dielectric layer and the width of the opening relative to the welding point as claimed. It is acknowledged that the opening of Yoshikawa is formed differently than the opening of current application; however, the resulting structure of Yoshikawa includes the dielectric layer having an opening, within which the welding point is formed to electrically coupling the electrode to the interconnector that implies the width of the opening is greater than the welding point in order for the welding point to be situated within the opening as shown in fig. 5 of Yoshikawa.
For the reasons above, Examiner maintains the position that claims 1, 3-5, 7, 12, 15-16 and 20-21 are unpatentable over the disclosure of Li, Yoshikawa and Chen.
The arguments regarding the rejection of claims 6, 11 and 13-14 are not persuasive because the arguments regarding the rejection of claim 1 are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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.
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 03/12/2026