Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/674,200

WIRE-BASED METALLIZATION FOR SOLAR CELLS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
May 24, 2024
Examiner
DINH, BACH T
Art Unit
1726
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
530 granted / 966 resolved
-10.1% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
1016
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
§102
26.7%
-13.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.3%
-20.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 966 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 02/03/2026. Claims 2-8 and 10-21 remain pending in the application with claims 12-21 are withdrawn from consideration. 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) 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). PNG media_image1.png 418 412 media_image1.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]). Lin 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 4c and 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). 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 with respect to claim(s) 2-8 and 10-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references 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 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 03/16/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 24, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 23, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 03, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 03, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 03, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 16, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595176
PREPARATION METHOD OF LITHIUM IRON PHOSPHATE CATHODE MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597882
PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER GENERATION MODULE USING CONDENSING LENS HAVING MEDIUM THEREIN AND PHOTOVOLTAIC/SOLAR HEAT POWER GENERATION SYSTEM INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12580517
PHOTOVOLTAIC ROOFING TILE FOOT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570173
Vehicular Electricity Generating Canopy Appliance
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563857
PHOTOVOLTAIC DEVICE INCLUDING A P-N JUNCTION AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+32.5%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 966 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month