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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8 are currently pending.
Claim 1 has been amended
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/07/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance. This action is made final.
Status of Rejections Pending
since The Office Action of 11/03/2025
The examiner modified the rejection below to address claim amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “the dielectric layer is continuous at the groove” in last lines. It is a new matter since the electrode goes through the dielectric layer which makes the dielectric discontinuous at the groove [fig 1, 3 4]. For the purpose of examination, the claim is treated that the dielectric layer covers a portion of groove.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN113871494, and further in view of CN 114709294, hereinafter as ‘494 and ‘294.
Regarding claim 1, ‘494 teaches a solar cell comprising:
a substrate 100 having a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other in a first direction, wherein the first direction is a thickness direction of the substrate [fig 3J explanation of fig 3A-3L of specific implementation examples section ];
a tunnel oxide layer TLU located on the first surface [fig 3J explanation of fig 3A-3L of specific implementation examples section];
a doped polysilicon layer N located on a surface of the tunnel oxide layer away from the substrate [fig3J explanation of fig 3A-3L of specific implementation examples section];
an electrode 420 located in the electrode region and in contact with the doped silicon layer [fig 3J explanation of fig 3A-3L of specific implementation examples section];
a dielectric layer310 located on a surface of the doped polysilicon layer away from the substrate and a surface of the barrier layer away from the substrate [fig 3J explanation of fig 3A-3L of specific implementation examples section]
the doped polysilicon layer includes a groove in the electrode region, the groove extends a predetermined depth into the doped polysilicon layer in the first direction wherein the predetermined depth is equal to or less than a thickness of the doped polysilicon layer [fig 3J explanation of fig 3A-3L of specific implementation examples section].
the predetermined depth is less than a thickness of the doped polysilicon layer [fig 3J explanation of fig 3A-3L of specific implementation examples section].
the tunnel oxide layer is continuous at the groove, and the dielectric layer is
continuous at the groove (the dielectric layer covers a portion of the groove) [fig 3J explanation of fig 3A-3L of specific implementation examples section]
Modified ‘294 teaches the barrier as set forth above, but modified ‘294 does not teach a barrier being formed on in a groove of the doped polysilicon layer and the barrier layer being made of silicon carbide
‘494 teaches a method of forming a solar cell including a barrier layer 6 being formed on the doped polysilicon layer on the groove where the barrier being made of silicon carbide. Also, ‘494 teaches a portion of the dielectric layer 9 and a portion of the electrode 10 are positioned in the groove (contents of the invention section (fig 6)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have barrier layer of ‘494 to be on the doped polysilicon and in the groove for improving the battery performance of the solar battery (para 1 contents of the invention section).
As for combination, the doped polysilicon layer includes a groove in the electrode region, the groove extends a predetermined depth into the doped polysilicon layer in the first direction, wherein the barrier layer is formed positioned in the groove, a portion of the dielectric layer and a portion of the electrode are positioned in the groove, wherein the predetermined depth is less than a thickness of the doped polysilicon layer.
Regarding claim 2, the barrier layer goes deep into the doped polysilicon layer to the predetermined depth in the first direction. [fig 6,‘294]
Regarding claim 3, the barrier layer is located on the surface of the tunnel oxide layer away from the substrate [fig 6, ‘294]
Regarding claim 5, Since modified ‘494 teaches the claimed limitation, it is considered that a recombination current density of the electrode region is equal to or less than 100fA/cm2. It is noted that "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 7, the electrode penetrates the dielectric layer and contacts the barrier layer [fig 3J, fig 6].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN113871494, and CN 114709294, and further in view of Jin et al (PG pub 20230411551)
Regarding claim 8, modified ‘494 teaches the doped polysilicon layer as set forth above, but modified ‘494 does not teach the thickness of the doped polysilicon layer as claimed.
Jin et al teaches solar cell comprising the doped polysilicon 121 being from 100-300 nm which is overlapped the claimed range [para 11 67].
According to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the thickness of the polysilicon of modified ‘494 to be the same of Jin et al since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/07/2026 are deemed moot in view of the following new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims which significantly affected the scope thereof (i.e., by incorporating new limitations into the independent claims, which require further search and consideration).
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 UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 5712721307. 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights