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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/27/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance. This action is made final.
Status of Rejections Pending
since The Office Action of 12/29/2026
The examiner modified the rejection below to address claim amendment.
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 Kim et al (PG Pub 20180083149) and DE 202022102629, hereinafter as ‘983, ‘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.
Kim et al teaches a solar cell comprising polysilicon layer 30 where the layer 30 having first conductive layer 32, second conductive layer 34 and the intrinsic layer 36 between first and second conductive layer [fig 1 para 51 55]. Also, Kim et al teaches a portion of the intrinsic semiconductor layer is diffused with a first conductive type dopant so as to form the first conductive regions 32 and a portion of the remaining intrinsic semiconductor layer is diffused with a second conductive type dopant so as to form the second conductive regions 34 [para 55]. Thus, the first and second conductive layer located in the intrinsic polysilicon layer and the first and second conductive layer are n-type and p-type which is boron and Phosphorous respectively [para 53]. Also, Kim et al teaches first electrode 42 and second electrode 44 being penetrated through the passivation layer 206 [fig 1] and in contact with first and second conductive layer respectively [fig 1]. Also, Kim et al teaches thermal diffusion being used to form first and second conductive layer [para 116].
‘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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the layer (12, 30, 22) of ’983 to be intrinsic and fist doped region and second doped region having B and P dopant where the first and second doped region inside the intrinsic layer as taught by Kim et al for simplifying process and prevent unnecessary shunt [para 54 55]. Also, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the first 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).
first doped region and between the isolation groove and the second doped region, the isolation groove deeps into the intrinsic polysilicon layer at least as deep as a predetermined depth.
The recitation “diffused from” is the presence of process limitations on products claim, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965) Gardner v.TEC Systame, Inc. F. 2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir.1984), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 830, 25 USPQ 232 (1984)
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 Kim et al (PG Pub 20180083149) and DE 202022102629, 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 Kim et al (PG Pub 20180083149) and DE 202022102629, 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 on 03/27/2026 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights