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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al. (US 5,935,344).
Regarding claim 1, Endo discloses a solar cell (abstract) comprising: a silicon substrate including a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other (7 in Fig. 1B; C4/L44); a first doped layer disposed on the first surface (9 in Fig. 1B); a tunneling layer disposed on the second surface and extending to a side of the silicon substrate (bottom 8 in Fig. 1B; it is noted that the limitation does not specify a material or thickness for the tunneling layer, therefore, the limitation requires a layer which is capable of a tunneling effect), wherein the tunneling layer covers a part of the side of the silicon substrate (bottom 8 in relation to the side of 7 in Fig. 1B), the height of the tunneling layer on the side of the silicon substrate is less than a thickness of the silicon substrate (height of bottom 8 on the side of 7 in Fig. 1B in relation to the thickness of 7); a second doped layer covers a surface of the tunneling layer away from the silicon substrate (10 in Fig. 1B), wherein the second doped layer extends to the side of the silicon substrate (10 in relation to 7 in Fig. 1B), a doped type of the first doped layer is opposite to a doped type of the second doped layer (9 is p-type and 10 is n-type as depicted in Fig. 1B); a first electrode connecting to the first doped layer (4 in relation to 9 in Fig. 1B; it is noted that the limitation “connecting to” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components); a second electrode connecting to the second doped layer (5 in relation to 10 in Fig. 1B; it is noted that the limitation “connecting to” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components); and an isolation trench penetrating the first doped layer along a thickness direction of the silicon substrate and surrounding the first electrode (1 in relation to 9 in Fig. 1B).
While Endo does disclose the thickness of substrate 7 is 200 to 400 microns (C4/L46) and depicts a height of bottom layer 8 on the side of the silicon substrate 7 in relation to the thickness of silicon substrate 7 (Fig. 1B), Endo does not explicitly disclose the height of the tunneling layer on the side of the silicon substrate is equal to or greater than 0.1 microns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form bottom layer 8 in Fig. 1B of Endo with a height which is equal to or greater than 0.1 microns because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 2, modified Endo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Endo further discloses a distance between the isolation trench and an edge of the first doped layer is less than 10 microns ~ 2000 microns (Figure 1B does not depict a distance between 1 and an edge of 9; it is noted that a distance of 0 is less than the claimed range of 10 microns ~ 2000 microns).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “preset,” the limitation is directed to
the manner in which the device is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 5, modified Endo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Endo further discloses a first passivation layer (top layer 3 in Fig. 1B), the first passivation layer is disposed on a surface of the first doped layer away from the silicon substrate (top layer 3 on 9 in Fig. 1B; it is noted that the recited “first passivation layer” requires a layer which is capable of passivating a surface).
Regarding claim 6, modified Endo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Endo further discloses the first passivation layer covers a bottom and a side of the isolation trench (Fig. 1B – top layer 3 covers a bottom and side of 1; it is noted that the term “covers” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components. It is also noted that the terms “bottom” and “side” are not limited to a particular spatial orientation of the device).
Regarding claim 7, modified Endo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Endo further discloses a second passivation layer (bottom layer 3 in Fig. 1B), the second passivation layer is disposed on a surface of the second doped layer away from the silicon substrate (bottom layer 3 in relation to 10 in Fig. 1B; it is noted that the recited “second passivation layer” requires a layer which is capable of passivating a surface).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 5-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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, Jeff 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights