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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 and 10 are currently pending.
Claim 1 has been amended
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/2/2025 has been entered.
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) 1-2, 5-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 116913983, and in view of JP 2004006565 and DE 202022102629 and CN106252458, hereinafter as ‘983, ‘565 and ‘629.
Regarding claim 1, ‘983 teaches a solar cell comprising:
a silicon substrate 101[fig 6 description] ;
a tunneling layer (11,21) [fig 6 description]
and a polysilicon layer (12, 30, 22) successively formed on a backside of the silicon substrate 1 [f fig 6 description] ;
a dielectric layer 40 formed on a backside of the polysilicon layer fig 6 description];
a first electrode 60 and a second electrode 50, the first electrode and the second electrode penetrate the dielectric layer and are in contact with the polysilicon layer [fig 6 description]
a first doped region 22 and second doped region 12[fig 6 description]
a region 30 is between the first and second doped region [fig 6 description].
an isolation groove located between the first doped region and the second doped region, wherein the isolation groove deeps into the polysilicon layer at least as deep as a predetermined depth [fig 6 description]
‘983 teaches the first doped and second doped region as set forth above, but ‘983 does not teach the first doped region and second doped region having structure as claimed and the first and second electrode with B and P dopant.
‘629 teaches a solar cell comprising the p-type region doped with boron is a positive electrode and the n-type region doped with phosphorus is a negative electrode (description section)
‘565 teaches by using heat treatment or fire the electrode, this would form the diffusion region inside the substrate and this process would be a low cost and simple process [para 71].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the fist and second electrode being doped with boron and phosphorus respectively as taught by ‘629 since Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP2144.07). Also, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first and second doped region of ‘501 by firing or heat treatment the first and second electrode as taught by ‘565 for low cost and simple process.
It is noted that instant application shows the structure of the first doped and second doped region formed by heat treatment the first and second electrode (specification). Modified Li teaches the claimed structure with same material of first and second doped as well as the first and second electrode. Also, modified Li et al teaches the same method as in the instant application. It is considered that a first doped region being p-type comprising boron diffused from the first electrode, wherein the first doped region starts from the first electrode and extends to an inside of the silicon substrate, a width of the first doped region located in the silicon substrate is equal to or greater than a width of the first doped region located in the polysilicon layer, the width of the first doped region located in the polysilicon layer is equal to or greater than a width of a contact portion between the first electrode and the polysilicon layer. Also, a second doped region being n-type doped and comprising phosphorus diffused from the second electrode the second doped region starts from the second electrode and extends to the inside of the silicon substrate and a width of the second doped region in the silicon substrate is equal to or greater than a width of the second doped region located in the polysilicon layer, and the width of the second doped region located in the polysilicon layer is equal to or greater than a width of a contact portion between the second electrode and the polysilicon layer located between the first doped region and the second doped region is intrinsic polysilicon.
Modified ‘983 teaches the region 30 being made of passivation layer and being made of aluminum oxide where region 30 is used to separate and insulate the first and second doped region. However, modified ‘983 does not teach the region 30 is made of intrinsic polysilicon.
‘629 teaches a solar cell comprising a barrier region 36 being between first and second doped region where the barrier region would be made of intrinsic polysilicon or oxide insulating material for insulating the first and second doped region [description section].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify material of region 30 of modified ‘983 to be made of intrinsic polysilicon as taught by ‘629 since ‘629 teaches intrinsic polysilicon and oxide insulating material would be used as an alternative material for region 30 and it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent material recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. A substitution of known equivalent structures is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, modified ‘983 teaches polysilicon layer including intrinsic polysilicon as set forth above, but modified ‘983 does not teach the tunnel being made of silicon oxide.
‘698 teaches a solar cell comprising tunnel layer 20 being made of silicon oxide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify material of tunnel layer of modified ‘983 to be made of silicon oxide since selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP2144.07)
Regarding claim 5, modified ‘983 teaches the dielectric layer covers a bottom and a sidewall of the isolation groove [fig 6].
Regarding claim 6, modified ‘983 teaches the dielectric layer including silicon nitride (description section).
Regarding claim 7, modified ‘983 teaches he predetermined depth is greater than half of a thickness of the polysilicon layer, or the isolation groove penetrates the polysilicon layer [fig 6]
Regarding claim 10, modified ‘5983 teaches further comprising a passivation anti-reflection layer (91,92) formed on a front side of the silicon substrate [fig 6]
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 116913983, and JP 2004006565 and DE 202022102629 and CN106252458, and further in view of CN 110061072, hereinafter as ‘072.
Regarding claim 3, modified ‘983 teaches the intrinsic region being between first and second doped region as set forth above, but modified ‘501 does not teach the minimum distance between first and second doped region.
‘072 teaches a solar cell comprising a P and N doping region where the distance between two regions is 1-500 micron which is overlapped the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the distance between the first and second doped region of modified ‘983 to be the same of ‘072 since it has been held that discovering a optimum value of a result effective variables involves only routine skill in the art. In re boesch, 617 F.2d272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Also, 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 Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 116913983, and JP 2004006565 and DE 202022102629 and CN106252458, and further in view of Rim et al (PG pub 20140090701).
Regarding claim 4, modified ‘983 teaches the claimed limitation, but modified ‘983 does not teach the polysilicon layer including oxygen.
Rim et al teaches a solar cell comprising a polysilicon including oxygen (abstract para 19 53].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the polysilicon layer of modified ‘983 including oxygen as taught by Rim et al for reducing space charge recombination losses at the junction of base and emitter diffusion regions thereby increasing solar cell efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on09/2/2025 are deemed moot in view of the following new grounds of rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims which significantly affected the scope thereof (i.e., by incorporating new limitations into the independent claims, which require further search and consideration).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 5712721307. 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726