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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 20 of claim 1 appears to be missing the word “layer” after the phrase “the doped semiconductor.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-15 are 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. Specifically, the as-filed specification does not describe “the doped semiconductor layer includes a first doped semiconductor layer arranged at the P regions and a second doped semiconductor layer arranged at the N regions,” and “the first doped semiconductor layer has a first edge region, and provided with a plurality of first holes at the first edge region, and the second doped semiconductor layer has a second edge region, and provided with a plurality of second holes at the second edge region a plurality of first holes at the first edge region,” as recited in claim 12, in conjunction with the limitation of claim 1 “the doped semiconductor layer is doped with P-type doping elements or N-type doping elements; in the case that the doped semiconductor layer is doped with P-type elements, the edge region has a width less than or equal to 50 microns in the first direction, and a respective hole of the plurality of holes has a one-dimensional size less than or equal to 10 microns; and in the case the doped semiconductor is doped with N-type doping elements, the edge region has a width less than or equal to 300 microns in the first direction, and a respective hole of the plurality of holes has a one-dimensional size less than or equal to 30 microns.” Claims 13-15 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 12.
Claims 12-15 are 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. Specifically, the as-filed specification does not describe “the doped semiconductor layer includes a first doped semiconductor layer arranged at the P regions and a second doped semiconductor layer arranged at the N regions,” as recited in claim 12, in conjunction with the limitation “the doped semiconductor layer is doped with P-type doping elements or N-type doping elements,” as recited in claim 1. The as-filed specification describes in paragraph [0117] the first doped semiconductor layer 244 is doped with the P-type doped element and the second doped semiconductor layer 254 is doped with the N-type doped element, which is not consistent with the limitation in claim 1: “the doped semiconductor layer is doped with P-type doping elements or N-type doping elements.” Claims 13-15 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 12.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, claim 12 recites in lines 14 and 16, respectively, “a plurality of first holes” and “a plurality of second holes,” however, the manner in which the recited “a plurality of first holes” and “a plurality of second holes” relate to the plurality of holes recited in claim 1, from which claim 12 depends is unclear. It is unclear as to whether the plurality of first and second holes recited in claim 12 are holes of the plurality of holes recited in claim 1, or whether the plurality of first and second holes recited in claim 12 are in addition to the plurality of holes recited in claim 1. Claims 13-15 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 12.
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, 6, 8, 11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 117276361 A – cited on 04/11/2024 IDS, see equivalent US 2024/0355940) in view of Okada et al. (US 2012/0125397).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a solar cell (Fig. 1) comprising: a substrate (40 in Fig. 1); a doped semiconductor layer disposed on the substrate (30 in Fig. 1; [0076]), wherein the doped semiconductor layer has an edge region adjacent a boundary of the doped semiconductor layer and a main region on a side of the edge region away from the boundary (shown in annotated Fig. 1 below); a passivation layer formed on a side of the doped semiconductor layer away from the substrate (20 in Fig. 1), the passivation layer including a passivation material ([0087]); an electrode extending through the passivation layer and in electrical contact with the doped semiconductor layer (91 in relation to 20 and 30 in Fig. 1); wherein the edge region of the doped semiconductor has a plurality of holes (50 in annotated Fig. 1 below; [0076]), and the plurality of holes are spaced apart from each other (50 in Fig. 1) and filled with the passivation material ([0081]); the doped semiconductor layer is doped with N-type doping elements ([0140], [0141]).
While Liu does disclose a respective hole of the plurality of holes has a one-dimensional size of greater than or equal to 100 nm ([0083]); Liu does not explicitly disclose the edge region has a width less than or equal to 300 microns in a first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the edge region of Liu with a width less than or equal to 300 microns in a first direction, 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).
Further, with regard to the limitation “a respective hole of the plurality of holes has a one-dimensional size less than or equal to 30 microns,” as set forth above, Liu discloses a respective hole of the plurality of holes has a one-dimensional size of greater than or equal to 100 nm ([0083]), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
While Liu does disclose an electrode extending through the passivation layer and in electrical contact with the doped semiconductor layer (91 in relation to 20 and 30 in Fig. 1); Liu does not explicitly disclose a plurality of electrodes arranged at intervals along the first direction.
Okada discloses a solar cell and further discloses a plurality of electrodes arranged at intervals along a first direction (6 in Fig. 6B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a plurality of electrodes arranged at intervals along the first direction, as disclosed by Okada, in addition to the electrode disclosed by Liu, because mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 6, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses the substrate is provided with recesses (Liu – [0078] discloses flaws in the substrate which can be filled with a part of the material of the second tunnel oxide layer 20), a respective recess of the recesses communicates with the respective hole (Liu – [0078] discloses flaws in the substrate which can be filled with a part of the material of the second tunnel oxide layer 20; [0082]).
While modified Liu does disclose a roughness of the first surface of the substrate is less than 1 micron ([0019]), modified Liu does not explicitly disclose the respective recess has a depth of less than 4 microns, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the flaws in the substrate of modified Liu with a depth of less than 4 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).
Additionally, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 8, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses the substrate is provided with textured structures in an inner wall of the recesses (Liu – [0019] discloses a roughness of the first surface of the substrate).
Regarding claim 11, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses a dielectric layer between the substrate and the doped semiconductor layer (Liu – 10 in Fig. 1; [0087]), wherein the respective hole further extends through the dielectric layer to reach a surface of the substrate (Liu – 50 in relation to 10 and 40 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses in a third direction from the boundary of the doped semiconductor layer across a width of the edge region towards the main region, a ratio of a number of the holes to a length of the edge region is zero (third direction shown in annotated Fig. 1 below).
Regarding claim 17, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses the plurality of holes include a first hole near the boundary of the doped semiconductor layer and a second hole further away from the boundary than the first hole (first and second holes shown in annotated Fig. 1 below).
While modified Liu does not explicitly disclose the first hole is greater than the second hole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first hole such that it is greater than the second hole 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 18, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses the doped semiconductor layer includes a doped polycrystalline silicon layer (Liu – [0076], layer 30).
Regarding claim 19, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses the doped semiconductor layer is doped with doping elements of a same type as the substrate (Liu – [0101]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Liu discloses a photovoltaic module (Fig. 1) comprising a solar cell (Fig. 1) including a substrate (40 in Fig. 1); a doped semiconductor layer disposed on the substrate (30 in Fig. 1; [0076]), wherein the doped semiconductor layer has an edge region adjacent a boundary of the doped semiconductor layer and a main region on a side of the edge region away from the boundary (shown in annotated Fig. 1 below); a passivation layer formed on a side of the doped semiconductor layer away from the substrate (20 in Fig. 1), the passivation layer including a passivation material ([0087]); an electrode extending through the passivation layer and in electrical contact with the doped semiconductor layer (91 in relation to 20 and 30 in Fig. 1); wherein the edge region of the doped semiconductor has a plurality of holes (50 in annotated Fig. 1 below; [0076]), and the plurality of holes are spaced apart from each other (50 in Fig. 1) and filled with the passivation material ([0081]); the doped semiconductor layer is doped with N-type doping elements ([0140], [0141]).
While Liu does disclose a respective hole of the plurality of holes has a one-dimensional size of greater than or equal to 100 nm ([0083]); Liu does not explicitly disclose the edge region has a width less than or equal to 300 microns in a first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the edge region of Liu with a width less than or equal to 300 microns in a first direction, 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).
Further, with regard to the limitation “a respective hole of the plurality of holes has a one-dimensional size less than or equal to 30 microns,” as set forth above, Liu discloses a respective hole of the plurality of holes has a one-dimensional size of greater than or equal to 100 nm ([0083]), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
While Liu does disclose an electrode extending through the passivation layer and in electrical contact with the doped semiconductor layer (91 in relation to 20 and 30 in Fig. 1); Liu does not explicitly disclose a plurality of electrodes arranged at intervals along the first direction.
Okada discloses a solar cell and further discloses a plurality of electrodes arranged at intervals along a first direction (6 in Fig. 6B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a plurality of electrodes arranged at intervals along the first direction, as disclosed by Okada, in addition to the electrode disclosed by Liu, because mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Modified Liu does not explicitly disclose the photovoltaic module comprises at least one cell string formed by connecting a plurality of solar cells; at least one encapsulation film, formed over surfaces of the at least one cell string; and at least one cover plate formed over surfaces of the at least one encapsulation film facing away from the at least one cell string.
Okada discloses a photovoltaic module comprising a cell string (string of cells 50 in Fig. 10B) formed by connecting a plurality of solar cells (50 in Fig. 10B); an encapsulation film formed over surfaces of the cell string (26 in Fig. 10B); and a cover plate formed over surfaces of the encapsulation film facing away from the cell string (25 in Fig. 10B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the photovoltaic module of modified Liu with a plurality of solar cells, as disclosed by Okada, because connecting a plurality of the solar cells disclosed by modified Liu in series increases the amount of power output.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 117276361 A – cited on 04/11/2024 IDS, see equivalent US 2024/0355940) in view of Okada et al. (US 2012/0125397) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Fabick et al. (US 2003/0127128).
Regarding claim 9, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
While modified Liu does disclose performing etching processing on a first surface
of the substrate, such that a reflectivity of the first surface is greater than 30%; and/or performing etching processing on the first surface of the substrate such that a roughness of the first surface of the substrate is less than 1 micron (Liu - [0044], [0045]); modified Liu does not explicitly disclose a respective textured structure of the textured structures includes at least one positive pyramid, and the respective hole corresponds to a minimum of one positive pyramid and a maximum of five positive pyramids in the respective textured structure.
Fabick discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses the shape of the photoactive layer may be defined by removing a portion of the applied layer, by laser etching, chemical etching, or bead blasting material from the substrate or by other techniques including, for example, photolithography, placing a physical contact mask on the substrate during the deposition of the photoactive layer, by patterning precursors to the photoactive layer to define the desired shape, or by laser etching the material from the substrate ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use any of the etching processes disclosed by Fabick, as the etching process in modified Liu, because as taught by Fabick, the shape of the photoactive layer may be defined by removing a portion of the applied layer, by laser etching, chemical etching, or bead blasting material from the substrate or by other techniques ([0034]).
As evidenced by Fabick, the use of any of the etching processes disclosed, for the etching process in modified Liu, amounts to the use of known processes in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when employing any of the disclosed etching processes as the etching process in modified Liu based on the teaching of Fabick.
With regard to the limitation “a respective textured structure of the textured structures includes at least one positive pyramid, and the respective hole corresponds to a minimum of one positive pyramid and a maximum of five positive pyramids in the respective textured structure,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the texture of modified Liu (Liu – [0044], [0045]) such that the texture includes at least one positive pyramid, and the respective hole corresponds to a minimum of one positive pyramid and a maximum of five positive pyramids in the respective textured structure, because such a modification would involve a mere change in configuration. 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).
Regarding claim 10, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses the plurality of electrodes are in contact with the at least one positive pyramid (the electrodes of modified Liu are in contact with the surface of 40 in Fig. 1 of Liu; it is noted that the limitation “in contact” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second hole)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first hole)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (main region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (edge region)][AltContent: textbox (boundary of doped semiconductor layer 30)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
394
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (third direction region)]
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 6, and 8-20 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, 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726