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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 27-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species B (Figs. 4A to 4G) and Species C (Figs. 5A to 5E), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/25/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, drawn to Figs. 3A to 3G and claims 19-26, in the reply filed on 08/25/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 19, 20, 21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO 2022013165 A1) with mapping and translation provided by Yang (US 2023/0253521 A1) in view of Choi (US 2014/0338747 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Yang disclose a method of forming a solar cell, comprising (See Figs. 1-17):
forming a plurality of openings (See Fig. 10, 34-openings [0070]) in a top layer of a multilayered stack of materials ( in layer 33 of Fig. 9, multilayer includes 20B, 30B, 33);
forming a plurality of non-contiguous surface doped regions (36) in portions of a polysilicon layer (30B [0056], note that 30B is analogous to layer 54 shown in Fig. 20 also see Fig. 3, [0091]) of the multilayered stack of materials that correspond to at least a portion of areas formed by the plurality of openings (34) in the top layer of the multilayered stack of materials;
forming a plurality of trenches (60, see Fig. 17 [0082]) around the plurality of non-contiguous surface doped regions (36 analogous to 66); and
forming a plurality of doped regions (68 [0082],see Fig. 17) in portions of a substrate (50, see Fig. 17 substrate 50 is analogous to substrate 10 shown in Fig. 9) located under the plurality of trenches.
However, Yang does not disclose that the plurality of openings formed in the top layer circumscribe doped regions (36).
Choi discloses a plurality of openings (See 200a in Figs. 3A-3G, and 3C to 3D ) in a top layer of a multilayered stack of materials ( 200,22,20,30); forming a plurality of non-contiguous surface doped regions (120) in the openings wherein the opening is larger and circumscribes the doped region (See Fig. 6, 30d analogous to 30c shown in Figs. 3A-3G) and the doped regions are circular in shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the plurality of openings of Yang so that the opening circumscribe the doped regions as disclosed by Choi because such an opening will allow for circular doped regions which Choi discloses is a shape of a doped contact region in back contact solar cell and Yang discloses a back contact solar cell doped region (see [0002]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Yang discloses that apertures (34 [0070]) are formed in the top layer (33) of the multilayered stack includes performing a laser ablation process (analogous to formation of 58, see Fig. 24 [0098]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Yang discloses wherein the forming the plurality of non-contiguous surface doped regions in the portions of the polysilicon layer includes performing a non-ablating laser process (gas dopant ([0071]).
Regarding claim 24, modified Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Yang discloses wherein the forming the plurality of trenches around the plurality of non-contiguous surface doped regions includes forming a plurality of non-contiguous surface doped polysilicon islands (See Fig. 16 and section 68 [0082][0108][0109]—since trench will surround circular shaped non-contiguous
surface doped polysilicon region, this is considered an island).
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO 2022013165 A1) with mapping and translation provided by Yang (US 2023/0253521 A1) in view of Choi (US 2014/0338747 A1) as applied to claims 19, 20, 21, and 24 above in view of Helig (US 2024/0379894 A1).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, modified Yang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Yang discloses that forming an area doped area 36 is formed with a thermal process ([0073]).
Yang discloses that instead of thermal process a laser process can be used for doping (See section 68 Fig. 26, [0104]-[0112]).
Helig discloses that a doped area on the back of a solar cell can be formed through a laser irradiation process of a doped glass layer (see layers 9 and 11, forming 7, see Figs. 1 and 2 [0069]-[0072][0088]) and this can help simplify solar cell manufacturing methods ([0033][0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of forming the non-contiguous surface doped regions of modified Yang by having a doped insulating layer followed by a laser irradiation and ablation process as disclosed by Helig because it can help simplify the solar cell manufacturing method of Yang.
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 19-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,074,234. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite a substantially similar method of forming a solar cell.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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 T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726