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 .
Summary
This is the response to the RCE filed on 08/18/2026.
Claims 2-8 and 10-21 remain pending in the application with claims 12-21 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claims 2-8 and 10-11 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. The Applicants stated that “Claim 2 has been amended based on Fig. 5 of the present application as originally filed. The Applicant believes that no new matter is introduced.” It is unclear as to how fig. 5 provides support for the limitation “wherein distances between each metal wire and the corresponding metal layer in the first direction are equal to each other” because the above limitation is not explicitly recited or implicitly or inherently disclosed by the originally filed disclosure. Fig. 5 and the accompanying description do not mention any distances between each metal wire and the corresponding metal layer in the first direction are equal to each other.
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 2-8 and 10-11 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. The limitation “wherein distances between each metal wire and the corresponding metal layer in the first direction are equal to each other” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear as to what the claimed “distances” are. The Applicant only mentioned that the limitation is shown in fig. 5 without annotating which parts shown in fig. 5 are the claimed distances since the originally filed disclosure does not mention any distances between each metal wire and the corresponding metal layer in the first direction are equal to each other.
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) 2-4, 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (CN104347746 with provided machine English translation) in view of Gillot et al. (US 2015/0340529) and Sakamoto et al. (US 2009/0272419).
Addressing claim 2, Lin discloses a solar cell (figs. 6-7), comprising:
a substrate 6 having a back surface and an opposing light-receiving surface (fig. 10);
a plurality of alternating N-type (4, N-doped layer) and P-type (5, P-doped layer) semiconductor regions disposed in or above the back surface of the substrate 6 (fig. 10);
a plurality of metal layers (44 and 54, [0071, 0103, 0106]) over and coupled to the plurality of alternating N-type and P-type semiconductor regions (figs. 10-11), wherein each metal layer of the plurality of metal layer is parallel along a first direction (figs. 10-11);
a conductive contact structure (fig. 5) disposed on the plurality of metal layers (fig. 10), the conductive contact structure comprising a plurality of metal wires (conductive wires 11 made of metallic material as disclosed in paragraph [0078] of the translation document), wherein each metal wire of the plurality of metal wires is parallel along the first direction to form a one-dimensional layout of metallization layer for the solar cell (figs. 10-11), wherein each metal wire of the plurality of metal wires has a width orthogonal to the first direction less than a shortest width of each corresponding metal layer of the plurality of metal layers (fig. 10), a plurality of insulating wires 12, each insulating wire of the plurality of insulating wires parallel along a second direction orthogonal to the first direction (fig. 5 shows a plurality of insulating wires extending in a second direction that is orthogonal to the first direction), and each insulating wire of the plurality of insulating wires woven through the plurality of metal wires (fig. 5), wherein the weaving of the metal wires 11 is alternating by ones (fig. 5 shows the weaving of the metal wires 11 is alternating by ones with respect to the insulating wires), and the weaving of metal wires is spaced for every two insulating wires (annotated fig. 5 below shows the wearing of metal wires is spaced for every two insulating wires in the horizontal direction, which meets the limitation of current claim),
wherein distances between each metal wire and the corresponding metal layer in the first direction are equal to each other (Lin implicitly discloses the limitation because fig. 9 of Lin shows the metal wires 111 or 112 are disposed parallel to the respective metal layers 54 and 44 in the first direction, which means the annotated distances in fig. 9 below between each point along the length of the metal wire with the corresponding point along the length of the metal layer do not change or are equal to each other in the first direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
418
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
452
857
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lin is silent regarding the weaving of metal wires is spaced for exactly every two insulating wires of the plurality of insulating wires parallel along the second direction and wherein each metal wire of the plurality of metal wires has a length parallel with the first direction less than a longest length of each corresponding metal layer of the plurality of metal layers.
Gillot discloses a conductive contact structure comprising a plurality of metal wires 100 interwoven with a plurality of insulating wires 10 for interconnecting back contact solar cells (figs. 1-2), similarly to that of Lin. Gillot discloses in figs. 3A-3B the weaving of metal wires is spaced every three insulating wires 10 of the plurality of insulating wires parallel along the second direction and in fig. 4 the weaving of metal wires is spaced every insulating wire 10, similarly to that of Lin. Figs. 3-5 of Gillot shows that the weaving of the metal wires is spaced every different number of insulating wires of the plurality of insulating wires parallel along the second direction in order to obtain the desired contact points between the contact structure and the back surface of the solar cells [0092-0095] and have a broad diversity of patterns to allow for better adaptation to the stresses of wiring providing greater freedom for arrangement of the portions of electrically conductive wire or ribbon, such as satin-weave and twill weave as alternatives to plain weave [0096-0097], which is the weave pattern of Lin.
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, absent evidence showing that the weaving of metal wires is spaced for exactly every two insulating wires of the plurality of insulating wires parallel along the second direction is critical, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the weaving pattern of Lin by perform routine experimentation with the weaving of metal wires is spaced with different number of insulating wires of the plurality of insulating wires parallel along the second direction as disclosed by Gillot in order to optimize the contact point between the back surface of the solar cell and the electrically conductive wire or ribbon and optimizing adaptation for the stresses of wiring (Gillot, [0092-0097]). Therefore, one would have arrived at the claimed pattern of weaving of metal wires is spaced for exactly every two insulating wires of the plurality of insulating wires parallel along the second direction when perform routine experimentation with the weaving of metal wires is spaced with different number of insulating wires as disclosed by Gillot in order to optimize the contact point between the back surface of the solar cell and the electrically conductive wire or ribbon and optimizing adaptation for the stresses of wiring (Gillot, [0092-0097]).
Sakamoto discloses in fig. 11 the metal wires do not extend beyond the boundary of the solar cell surface. Sakamoto discloses back contact solar cell (figs. 2A-2B), similarly to that of Lin; wherein, the solar cell comprises a plurality of metal conductive structures 5a that have widths that are smaller than the corresponding metal layers and lengths that are less than the longest length of the corresponding metal layer (figs. 2A, 5A, 6A). Sakamoto further discloses in annotated fig. 2A below that the distances between each metal wire 5a and the corresponding metal layer in the first direction (vertical direction) are equal to each other.
PNG
media_image3.png
516
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the solar cell of Lin in view of Gillot with the metal wires having length along the first direction that is less than the longest length of each corresponding metal layer of the plurality of metal layers as disclosed by Sakamoto in order to obtain the predictable result of collecting the current generated by the doped semiconductive regions on the back surface of the solar cell (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143; Sakamoto, [0081]).
Addressing claim 3, figs. 1-2 of Lin show each of the plurality of alternating N-type and P-type semiconductor regions is parallel along a direction that corresponds to the claimed third direction to form a one-dimensional layout of emitter regions of the solar cell.
Addressing claim 4, figs. 10-11 of Lin imply that the first direction approximately parallel with the third direction.
Addressing claims 7-8, fig. 5 of Lin shows the metal wire of the plurality of metal wires is undulating in a plane parallel with the back surface of the substrate as the metal wires are woven between the insulating wires. The undulation of the metal wires corresponds to the claimed stress relief feature.
Addressing claim 10, paragraph [0074] discloses the substrate 6 is a single crystal silicon substrate that corresponds to the claimed monocrystalline silicon substrate, and wherein the plurality of alternating N-type and P-type semiconductor regions is a plurality of N-type and P-type diffusion regions formed in the silicon substrate [0007].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (CN104347746 with provided machine English translation) in view of Gillot et al. (US 2015/0340529) and Sakamoto et al. (US 2009/0272419) as applied to claims 2-4 and 7-10 above, and further in view of Cesar et al. (WO2012/173487).
Addressing claim 5, Lin is silent regarding the first direction is approximately orthogonal to the third direction.
Cesar discloses the direction along which the plurality of alternating N-type and P-type semiconductor regions extend is orthogonal to the direction along which the plurality of metal wires extend (figs. 2a-4 and 7).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the solar cell of Lin with the known arrangement where the direction along which the plurality of alternating N-type and P-type semiconductor regions extend is orthogonal to the direction along which the plurality of metal wires extend as disclosed by Cesar in order to obtain the predictable result of interconnecting back contact solar cells in a solar cell module (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (CN104347746 with provided machine English translation) in view of Gillot et al. (US 2015/0340529) and Sakamoto et al. (US 2009/0272419) as applied to claims 2-4 and 7-10 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2013/0014801).
Addressing claim 6, Lin is silent regarding each metal wire of the plurality of metal wires is undulating in a plane parallel with the back surface of the substrate.
Chen discloses metal wires for interconnecting two bonding points; wherein, the metal wires is continuously undulating between two bonding points 142 and 162 (fig. 1) and is undulating in a plane parallel with the back surface of the substrate [0006].
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the metal wires of Lin with a portion that undulates in a plane parallel with the back surface of the substrate as disclosed by Chen in order to reduce failure and breakage of the solar cells by relieving the internal stress of the metal wires (Chen, [0005-0008]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (CN104347746 with provided machine English translation) in view of Gillot et al. (US 2015/0340529) and Sakamoto et al. (US 2009/0272419) as applied to claims 2-4 and 7-10 above, and further in view of Isaka (US 2011/0120530).
Addressing claim 11, Lin is silent regarding the limitation of current claim.
Isaka discloses back contact solar cell with alternating n-type and p-type semiconductor layers (111 and 112) that are interconnected via respective metal wires (131 and 132, fig. 7) similarly to that of Cesar. Isaka further discloses the substrate is a monocrystalline or a polycrystalline silicon substrate [0060] and the alternating n-type and p-type semiconductor regions is a plurality of N-type and P-type diffusion regions formed in the silicon substrate [0071-0074], which meets the limitation of claim 9. Regarding the limitation of claim 10, when the substrate is made of polycrystalline silicon, the n-type and p-type formed in the back surface of the substrate are also made of polycrystalline silicon.
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the method of Lin by substituting the known materials of substrate and n-type and p-type semiconductor regions of Lin with the known materials substrate and n-type and p-type semiconductor regions disclosed by Isaka in order to obtain the predictable result of forming back contact solar cell with alternating n-type and p-type semiconductor regions on the back surface for generating electricity from sunlight (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicants argued that Lin view of Gillot and Sakamoto does not disclose the limitation “wherein distances between each metal wire and the corresponding metal layer in the first direction are equal to each other”. The argument is not persuasive because, as discussed above, Lin implicitly discloses the claimed limitation and Sakamoto explicitly discloses the claimed limitation; therefore, the limitation of claim 1 would have been obvious based on the teaching of Lin, Gillot and Sakamoto as discussed above. For the reasons above, Examiner maintains the position that claims 2-4, 7-8 and 10 are unpatentable over the disclosure of Lin, Gillot and Sakamoto.
The arguments regarding the rejection of claims 5-6 and 11 are not persuasive because the arguments regarding the rejection of claim 2 are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 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.
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 08/24/2026
Prosecution Insights