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 1-8 are currently pending.
Claim 1 has been amended
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/11/2025 has been entered.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN214753793, and further in view of CN 113871494, hereinafter as ‘793, ‘494.
Regarding claim 1, ‘793 teaches a solar cell comprising:
a substrate 1 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 1];
a tunnel oxide layer 41 located on the first surface [fig 1 embodiment 1];
a doped polysilicon layer 42 located on a surface of the tunnel oxide layer away from the substrate [fig 1 embodiment 1];
an electrode 7 located in the electrode region and in contact with the doped silicon layer [fig 1];
a dielectric layer5 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 1]
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 1].
the predetermined depth is less than a thickness of the doped polysilicon layer [fig 1].
Modified ‘793 teaches the barrier as set forth above, but modified ‘793 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 ‘793 to be on the doped polysilicon and in the groove as taught by ‘494 for improving the battery performance of the solar battery (contents of the invention section 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 1]
Regarding claim 3, the barrier layer is located on the surface of the tunnel oxide layer away from the substrate [fig 1]
Regarding claim 4, the surface of the barrier layer away from the substrate is closer to the substrate than the surface of the doped polysilicon layer away from the substrate [fig 10]
Regarding claim 5, Since modified ‘793 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 1, fig 6]
Regarding claim 8, modified ‘793 teaches the thickness of the doped polysilicon layer from 50-350nm which is overlapped the claimed range [embodiment]. 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/11/2025 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
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