DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 18/649,850, filed 4/29/2024.
Claims 1-18 are pending, and are considered herein.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first inventor to file provisions.
Claim Interpretations
It is noted that the term “over” is construed to include “on a side of.” This is consistent with the use of the term in the instant claims, with respect to the figures in the instant specification. For example, Claims 1, 11, and 15 recite that the “second dielectric layer” is “disposed over” the first layer of polysilicon. Fig. 1 shows that the second dielectric layer 109 layer is disposed on/over one side of, and below, the first layer of polysilicon 108.
Therefore, “over” can reasonably be construed to include layers that are on a side of, while below, another layer, while being consistent with the instant specification.
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent 4,665,277: This reference teaches a silicon solar cell with front and rear emitter structures and front and rear passivation layers (Figs. 4a-b).
U.S. Patent 5,704,992: This reference teaches a textured, polycrystalline silicon solar cell with front and rear emitter structures and front and rear passivation layers (Figs. 5-7).
Warabisako, et al. ("Bifacial multicrystalline silicon solar cells," Conference Record of the Twenty Third IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference - 1993 (Cat. No.93CH3283-9), Louisville, KY, USA, 1993, pp. 248-251): This reference teaches a multi-crystalline silicon solar cell with front and rear emitters and front and rear passivation layers (Fig. 1).
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 12/166,266, 13/483,941, 15/230,191, and 16/594,417 fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
None of applications 12/166,266, 13/483,941, 15/230,191, or 16/594,417 provide explicit or inherent support for the scope of “wherein the first metal contact overlaps with a footprint of the busbar,” or “each plurality of second metal contacts entirely outside of the footprint of the busbar,” as recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 15.
Although Fig. 1 appears to teach that a portion of first metal contact 110 vertically overlaps with a portion of layer 112, the instant figures (and the corresponding text) do not provide support for the scope of the full scope of “wherein the first metal contact overlaps with a footprint of the busbar.”
Further, although Fig. 1 provides support for a plurality of second metal contacts 102 above and electrically connected to the front surface of the (N-type) silicon substrate, neither the figures nor the text provides support for the scope of “each plurality of second metal contacts entirely outside of the footprint of the busbar.”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 11, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,448.
Claims 15-19 of U.S. Patent 12,009,448 teach all of the limitations of instant Claims 1, 11, and 15, except for “a first busbar beneath the first metal contact, wherein the first metal contact overlaps with a footprint of the first busbar; pluralities of second metal contacts above and electrically connected to the front surface of the substrate, each plurality of second metal contacts entirely outside of the footprint of the first busbar.”
Claims 15-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,448 do not explicitly teach that the first metal contact overlaps with a footprint of the busbar. However, there are only two options for whether the first metal contact overlaps with a footprint of the busbar: either it does overlap, or it does not.
It is the Examiner’s position that the routine optimization of the electrode spacing on the rear of the device of Claims 15-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,448 would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a configuration that meets the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 15, because this configuration represents one of only two possible configurations.
Claims 15-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,448 do not explicitly teach that each plurality of second metal contacts lies/extends entirely outside of the footprint of the busbar.
However, there are only two options for whether the plurality of second metal contacts lies/extends entirely outside of the footprint of the busbar: either they lie entirely outside of the footprint of the bus bar, or they do not.
It is the Examiner’s position that the routine optimization of the electrode spacing on the front and rear of the device of Claims 15-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,448 would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a configuration that meets the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 15, because this configuration represents one of only two possible configurations.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, and 13-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-30 and 34 of copending Application No. 17/870,268 in view of Sinton (U.S. Patent 5,053,083).
Claims 21-30 and 34 of copending Application No. 17/870,268 teach all of the limitations of instant claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, and 13-15, except for the limitations directed toward the bus bar.
To solve the same problem of providing a silicon solar cell, Sinton teaches that providing a bus bar connected to metal contacts on a solar cell provides the benefit of significantly reducing series resistance of the solar cell by increasing the cross-section of the conductive elements (column 9, lines 42-45).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the device of Claims 21-30 and 34 of copending Application No. 17/870,268 with a rear bus bar, as taught by Sinton, because Sinton teaches that providing a bus bar connected to metal contacts on a solar cell provides the benefit of significantly reducing series resistance of the solar cell by increasing the cross-section of the conductive elements (column 9, lines 42-45).
This modification teaches the limitations of Claims, 1, 11, and 15, that the solar cell comprises a bus bar beneath the first metal contacts.
Modified Claims 21-30 and 34 of copending Application No. 17/870,268 do not teach “the first metal contact overlaps with a footprint of the first busbar; pluralities of second metal contacts above and electrically connected to the front surface of the substrate, each plurality of second metal contacts entirely outside of the footprint of the first busbar.”
However, there are only two options for whether the first metal contact overlaps with a footprint of the busbar: either it does overlap, or it does not.
It is the Examiner’s position that the routine optimization of the electrode spacing on the rear of the device of modified Claims 21-30 and 34 of copending Application No. 17/870,268 would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a configuration that meets the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 15, because this configuration represents one of only two possible configurations.
Similarly, there are only two options for whether the plurality of second metal contacts lies/extends entirely outside of the footprint of the busbar: either they lie entirely outside of the footprint of the bus bar, or they do not.
It is the Examiner’s position that the routine optimization of the electrode spacing on the front and rear of the device of modified Claims 21-30 and 34 of copending Application No. 17/870,268 would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a configuration that meets the limitations of Claims 1, 11, and 15, because this configuration represents one of only two possible configurations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-18 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.
Independent Claims 1, 11 and 15 each recite “each plurality of second metal contacts entirely outside of the footprint of the busbar.” The metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear, because, since the limitation appears to be missing a term, the structure required by the limitation “entirely outside the footprint of the busbar” is unclear.
It is unclear whether this limitation is intended to recite “each plurality of second metal contacts lies entirely outside of the footprint of the busbar,” “each plurality of second metal contacts extends entirely outside of the footprint of the busbar,” or another structure.
Claims 2-10 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 1. Claims 12-14 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 11, and Claims 16-18 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 15.
Claim 2 recites “the second metal contact.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, because Claim 1 recites a plurality of second metal contacts. Therefore, it is unclear to which of these second metal contacts is referred in Claim 2.
Claim 12 recites “the second metal contact.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, because Claim 11 recites a plurality of second metal contacts. Therefore, it is unclear to which of these second metal contacts is referred in Claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
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.
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cousins (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0000597 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, it is noted that Claim 1 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejections represent the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Cousins teaches a solar cell (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0014]-[0023]).
The solar cell of Cousins comprises a substrate 101 of a first conductivity type (N-type, paragraph [0015]).
Cousins teaches that the substrate 101 has a front surface that faces the sun during normal operation (i.e. the top surface in Fig. 1) and a back surface that is opposite the front surface (i.e. the bottom surface in Fig. 1).
The solar cell of Cousins comprises a first dielectric layer 107 disposed on the back surface of the substrate (Fig. 1, paragraph [0018]).
The solar cell of Cousins comprises a first layer of doped polysilicon 108 disposed on the first dielectric layer 107 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0018]).
Fig. 1 teaches that the first dielectric layer 107 is disposed between the first layer of doped polysilicon 108 and the back surface of the substrate 101.
Cousins teaches that the first layer of doped polysilicon 108 is of a second conductivity type that is opposite to the first conductivity type (paragraph [0015]).
The solar cell of Cousins comprises a first metal contact 110 that is electrically connected to the first layer of doped polysilicon 108 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0018]).
The solar cell of Cousins comprises a busbar 112 beneath the first metal contact 110.
Cousins does not explicitly teach that the first metal contact 110 overlaps with a footprint of the busbar 112. However, it appears from Fig. 1 that the first metal contact 110 is intended to lie directly over at least a portion of the bus bar 112. Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the device Cousins so that the first metal contact 110 overlaps with a footprint of the busbar 112, because this is the structure that appears to be indicated in Fig. 1.
Alternatively, there are only two options for whether the first metal contact 110 overlaps with a footprint of the busbar 112: either it does overlap, or it does not.
It is the Examiner’s position that the routine optimization of the electrode spacing on the rear of the device of Cousins would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a configuration that meets the limitations of Claim 1, because this configuration represents one of only two possible configurations.
The solar cell of Cousins comprises pluralities of second metal contacts 102 above and electrically connected to the front surface of the substrate 101 (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0014] and [0024]).
Cousins does not explicitly teach that each plurality of second metal contacts lies/extends entirely outside of the footprint of the busbar.
However, it appears in Fig. 1 that each plurality of second metal contacts does not vertically overlap with the busbar.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the device of Cousins so that the each plurality of second metal contacts does not vertically overlap with the busbar, because it appears that this structure is suggested by the figure.
Alternatively, there are only two options for whether the plurality of second metal contacts lies/extends entirely outside of the footprint of the busbar: either they lie entirely outside of the footprint of the bus bar, or they do not.
It is the Examiner’s position that the routine optimization of the electrode spacing on the front and rear of the device of Cousins would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a configuration that meets the limitations of Claim 1, because this configuration represents one of only two possible configurations.
The solar cell of Cousins comprises an N-type doped region 105 under the front surface of the substrate (Fig. 1, paragraph [0015]).
Cousins teaches that this N-type doped region 105 is of opposite conductivity type to the first layer of doped polysilicon 108, which is taught to be P-type (paragraph [0015]).
Cousins teaches that the solar cell of his invention comprises a second dielectric layer 109 comprising contact holes disposed over the first layer of doped polysilicon 108, wherein the first metal contact 110 is electrically connected to the first layer of doped polysilicon through the contact holes (Fig. 1, paragraph [0018]).
In reference to Claim 2, the solar cell of Cousins further comprises a third dielectric layer 402 disposed on the front surface of the substrate (Fig. 1, paragraph [0016]).
The solar cell of Cousins further comprises a second layer of doped polysilicon 106 of the first conductivity type (i.e. N-type) (Fig. 1, paragraph [0016]).
Fig. 1 teaches that the third dielectric layer 402 is disposed between the second layer of doped polysilicon 106 and the front surface of the substrate 101.
Fig. 1 teaches that the second metal contact (i.e. one of the second metal contacts 102) is disposed on and is electrically connected to the second layer of doped polysilicon 106.
In reference to Claim 3, Fig. 1 teaches that the solar cell further comprises an antireflective layer 103 on a portion of the front surface of the substrate 101 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0017]).
In reference to Claim 4, Cousins teaches that the antireflective layer 103 comprises silicon nitride (paragraph [0017]).
In reference to Claim 5, Cousins teaches that the first dielectric layer 107 comprises silicon dioxide (paragraph [0018]).
In reference to Claim 6, Cousins teaches that the first dielectric layer 107 has thickness between 10 and 50 Angstroms (paragraph [0018]).
In reference to Claim 7, Cousins teaches that the solar cell further comprises a third metal contact disposed over the first metal contact (corresponding to one of the bus bars 112 shown in Fig. 3). This is further described in Cousins, claim 7.
In reference to Claim 8, Cousins teaches that the first metal contact 110, in conjunction with the second dielectric layer 109, is an infrared reflecting layer on the back surface of the substrate (paragraph [0018]).
In reference to Claim 9, Cousins teaches that the first layer of doped polysilicon comprises a P-type doped polysilicon and the substrate comprises an N-type silicon substrate (paragraph [0015]).
In reference to Claim 10, Cousins does not teach that the first metal contact 110 necessarily comprises silver.
However, he teaches that one of several suitable configurations for the first metal contact layer 110 is a configuration comprising silver (paragraph [0044]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the first metal contact 110 to comprise silver, because Cousins teaches that this is one of several suitable forms of this layer.
In reference to Claim 11, it is noted that Claim 11 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejections represent the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Cousins teaches a solar cell (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0014]-[0023]).
Cousins teaches that the solar cell comprises a first dielectric layer 107 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0018]) disposed on a back surface of an N-type silicon substrate 101 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0015]).
Fig. 1 teaches that the back surface is opposite a front surface of the N-type silicon substrate 101.
Fig. 1 teaches that the front surface facing the sun during normal operation (paragraph [0014]).
Fig. 1 teaches that the solar cell comprises a textured surface on the front surface of the N-type silicon substrate 101 (paragraph [0015]).
Fig. 1 teaches that the solar cell comprises an antireflective layer 103 on the textured surface (paragraph [0017]).
Fig. 1 teaches that the solar cell comprises a layer of P-type doped polysilicon 108 (paragraph [0015]).
Fig. 1 teaches that the first dielectric layer 107 is disposed between the back surface of the N-type silicon substrate 101 and the layer of P-type doped polysilicon 108.
Fig. 1 teaches that the solar cell comprises a first metal contact 110 that is electrically connected to the layer of P-type doped polysilicon 108 (paragraph [0018]).
Fig. 1 teaches that the solar cell comprises a busbar 112 beneath the first metal contact 110 (paragraph [0019]).
Cousins does not explicitly teach that the first metal contact 110 overlaps with a footprint of the busbar 112. However, it appears from Fig. 1 that the first metal contact 110 is intended to lie directly over at least a portion of the bus bar 112. Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the device Cousins so that the first metal contact 110 overlaps with a footprint of the busbar 112, because this is the structure that appears to be indicated in Fig. 1.
Alternatively, there are only two options for whether the first metal contact 110 overlaps with a footprint of the busbar 112: either it does overlap, or it does not.
It is the Examiner’s position that the routine optimization of the electrode spacing on the rear of the device of Cousins would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a configuration that meets the limitations of Claim 11, because this configuration represents one of only two possible configurations.
The solar cell of Cousins comprises pluralities of second metal contacts 102 above and electrically connected to the front surface of the N-type silicon substrate 101 (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0014] and [0024]).
Cousins does not explicitly teach that each plurality of second metal contacts lies/extends entirely outside of the footprint of the busbar.
However, it appears in Fig. 1 that each plurality of second metal contacts does not vertically overlap with the busbar.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the device of Cousins so that the each plurality of second metal contacts does not vertically overlap with the busbar, because it appears that this structure is suggested by the figure.
Alternatively, there are only two options for whether the plurality of second metal contacts lies/extends entirely outside of the footprint of the busbar: either they lie entirely outside of the footprint of the bus bar, or they do not.
It is the Examiner’s position that the routine optimization of the electrode spacing on the front and rear of the device of Cousins would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a configuration that meets the limitations of Claim 11, because this configuration represents one of only two possible configurations.
The solar cell of Cousins comprises an N-type doped region 105 under the textured surface (Fig. 1, paragraph [0015]).
The solar cell of Cousins comprises a second dielectric layer 109 comprising contact holes disposed over the first layer of doped polysilicon 108, wherein the first metal contact 110 is electrically connected to the layer of P-type doped polysilicon through the contact holes (Fig. 1, paragraph [0018]).
In reference to Claim 12, the solar cell of Cousins further comprises a third dielectric layer 402 disposed on the front surface of the substrate (Fig. 1, paragraph [0016]).
The solar cell of Cousins further comprises a layer of N-type doped polysilicon 106 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0016]).
Fig. 1 teaches that the third dielectric layer 402 is disposed between the layer of N-type doped polysilicon 106 and the front surface of the N-type silicon substrate 101.
Fig. 1 teaches that the second metal contact (i.e. one of the second metal contacts 102) is disposed on and is electrically connected to the second layer of doped polysilicon 106.
In reference to Claim 13, Cousins teaches that the antireflective layer 103 comprises silicon nitride (paragraph [0017]).
In reference to Claim 14, Cousins does not teach that the first metal contact 110 and the second metal contact 102 necessarily comprise silver.
However, he teaches that one of several suitable configurations for the first metal contact layer 110 and the second metal contact layer 102 is a configuration in which both comprise silver (paragraph [0044]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the first and second metal contacts 102 and 110 to comprise silver, because Cousins teaches that this is one of several suitable forms of these layers.
In reference to Claim 15, it is noted that Claim 15 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejections represent the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Cousins teaches a solar cell (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0014]-[0023]).
The solar cell of Cousins comprises a substrate 101 of a first conductivity type (i.e. N-type, paragraph [0015]).
Fig. 1 teaches that the substrate has a front surface that faces the sun during normal operation and a back surface that is opposite the front surface (paragraph [0014]).
The solar cell of Cousins comprises a first dielectric layer 107 disposed on the back surface of the substrate 101 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0018]).
The solar cell of Cousins comprises a first layer of doped polysilicon 108 disposed on the first dielectric layer 107 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0015]).
Fig. 1 teaches that the first dielectric layer 107 is disposed between the first layer of doped polysilicon 108 and the back surface of the substrate.
Cousins teaches that the first layer of doped polysilicon 108 is a second conductivity type that is opposite to the first conductivity type (paragraph [0015]).
The solar cell of Cousins comprises a first metal contact 110 that is electrically connected to the first layer of doped polysilicon 108 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0018]).
The solar cell of Cousins comprises a first busbar 112 beneath the first metal contact 110.
Cousins does not explicitly teach that the first metal contact 110 overlaps with a footprint of the first busbar 112. However, it appears from Fig. 1 that the first metal contact 110 is intended to lie directly over at least a portion of the first bus bar 112. Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the device Cousins so that the first metal contact 110 overlaps with a footprint of the first busbar 112, because this is the structure that appears to be indicated in Fig. 1.
Alternatively, there are only two options for whether the first metal contact 110 overlaps with a footprint of the first busbar 112: either it does overlap, or it does not.
It is the Examiner’s position that the routine optimization of the electrode spacing on the rear of the device of Cousins would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a configuration that meets the limitations of Claim 15, because this configuration represents one of only two possible configurations.
The solar cell of Cousins comprises pluralities of second metal contacts 102 above and electrically connected to the front surface of the substrate 101 (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0014] and [0024]).
Cousins does not explicitly teach that each plurality of second metal contacts lies/extends entirely outside of the footprint of the busbar.
However, it appears in Fig. 1 that each plurality of second metal contacts does not vertically overlap with the busbar.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the device of Cousins so that the each plurality of second metal contacts does not vertically overlap with the busbar, because it appears that this structure is suggested by the figure.
Alternatively, there are only two options for whether the plurality of second metal contacts lies/extends entirely outside of the footprint of the first busbar: either they lie entirely outside of the footprint of the first bus bar, or they do not.
It is the Examiner’s position that the routine optimization of the electrode spacing on the front and rear of the device of Cousins would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a configuration that meets the limitations of Claim 15, because this configuration represents one of only two possible configurations.
Fig. 1 teaches that the solar cell comprises a doped region 105 under a textured portion of the front surface of the substrate 101 (paragraph [0015]).
Cousins teaches that the doped region 105 is of opposite conductivity type to the first layer of doped polysilicon 108 (paragraph [0015]).
Fig. 1 teaches that the solar cell comprises a second dielectric layer 109 comprising contact holes disposed over the first layer of doped polysilicon 108, wherein the first metal contact 110 is electrically connected to the first layer of doped polysilicon 108 through the contact holes (paragraph [0018]).
Fig. 2 teaches that the solar cell comprises a second bus bar 201 disposed on the front surface of the substrate, wherein the first metal contact is in electrical contact with (i.e. through the substrate), and is perpendicular to (i.e. extends in a direction perpendicular to), the second bus bar 201.
In reference to Claim 16, Fig. 2 teaches that the solar cell further comprises a third bus bar 201 disposed on the front surface of the substrate, wherein the second bus bar 201 is parallel to the third bus bar 201.
In reference to Claim 17, Fig. 1 teaches that the first metal contact 110 is in electrical contact with (i.e. through the substrate), and perpendicular to (i.e. extends in a direction perpendicular to), the third bus bar 201 and the second bus bar 201 (which are shown in Fig. 2).
In reference to Claim 18, Fig. 3 teaches that the solar cell further comprises a fourth bus bar 112 disposed on the back surface of the substrate, wherein the fourth bus bar 112 is parallel to the third bus bar 112.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721