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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 4. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 12 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 5. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
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 1, 3-6, and 11-13 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. Specifically, lines 12 and 13 of claim 1 recite “wherein the isolating trench is capable of penetrating the second doped layer and the first doped layer on the overlapping region,” while the as-filed specification describes in paragraph [0019] “In some possible embodiments, the second doped layer and the second interface passivation layer are penetrated by the isolating trench; or the second doped layer, the second interface passivation layer, the first doped layer and the first interface passivation layer are penetrated by the isolating trench.” The as-filed specification does not describe the isolating trench is capable of penetrating the doped layers. Claims 3-6 and 11-13 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 11-13 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. Specifically, lines 12 and 13 of claim 1 recite “wherein the isolating trench is capable of penetrating the second doped layer and the first doped layer on the overlapping region,” however, the structure required to satisfy the limitation is unclear. The meaning of a trench which is capable of penetrating layers is not detailed in the as-filed specification, and absent a corresponding description in the as-filed specification, the limitation “wherein the isolating trench is capable of penetrating the second doped layer and the first doped layer on the overlapping region” renders claim 1 indefinite. Claims 3-6 and 11-13 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (US 2015/0340531) in view of Lin et al. (US 2012/0090676).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi discloses a back contact solar cell (Fig. 2) comprising: a substrate (10 in Fig. 2), wherein the substrate has a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other (10 in Fig. 2), a first doped region ([0031] – region in 12n in Fig. 2), a second doped region ([0039] – region in 13p in Fig. 2) and an overlapping region on the first surface (region containing 13i in Fig. 2), the first doped region and the second doped region are arranged in a staggered manner (region in 12n and region in 13p in Fig. 2), and the overlapping region is located between the first doped region and the second doped region (region containing 13i in Fig. 2 in relation to region in 12n and region in 13p); the overlapping region has an isolating trench for insulating contact between the first doped region and the second doped region (the vertical portion of 13i in Fig. 2); a first doped layer formed on the first doped region and the overlapping region (shown in annotated Fig. 2 below); a second layer formed on the first doped layer on the overlapping region and the second doped region (30a in Fig. 2; it is noted that the limitation “on” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components; additionally, the limitation “on” does not require a specific spatial direction/orientation between components); wherein the isolating trench penetrates the second layer and the first doped layer on the overlapping region (30a and first doped layer (depicted in annotated Fig. 2 below) in relation to vertical portion of 13i in Fig. 2; see note below regarding product-by-process limitation); the overlapping region is divided by the isolating trench into a first overlapping region and a second overlapping region (region on opposing sides of 13i in Fig. 2 satisfy the limitation requiring first and second overlapping regions); the first overlapping region is close to the first doped region (region adjacent to vertical portion of 13i in Fig. 2; it is noted that the limitation “close to” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components), and the second overlapping region is close to the second doped region (opposing region which is adjacent to the other side of the vertical portion of 13i in Fig. 2; it is noted that the limitation “close to” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components); and the back contact solar cell further comprises a first electrode (15 in Fig. 2) and a second electrode (14 in Fig. 2), wherein the first electrode is electrically contacted with the first doped layer ([0042] – p-side electrode) and the second electrode is electrically contacted with the second layer ([0042] – n side electrode).
Hayashi et al. does not explicitly disclose the second layer is a second doped layer.
Lin et al. discloses a solar cell and further discloses a TCO layer doped with n-type dopants ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the inventio was filed to form the second layer of Hayashi et al. with a TCO layer with n-type dopants, as disclosed by Lin et al., because as evidenced by Lin et al., the use of a TCO layer with n-type dopants in a solar cell amounts to the use of known components in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when using a TCO layer with n-type dopants in the device of Hayashi et al. based on the teaching of Lin et al.
Modified Hayashi et al. discloses wherein a conductivity type of the second doped layer is opposite to a conductive type of the first doped layer (TCO layer 30a in Hayashi et al. with n-type dopants, as set forth in the modification above, in relation to the conductivity type of 13p in Fig. 2 of Hayashi et al.).
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first doped layer)]
PNG
media_image1.png
870
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, modified Hayashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Hayashi does not explicitly disclose a ratio of a width of the first overlapping region to a width of the first doped region ranges from 0.1 to 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first overlapping region and the first doped region with widths such that a ratio of the widths range from 0.1 to 5 because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
It is further noted that with regard to the limitation “region,” the limitation does not specify a structural boundary defined by a difference in material composition, therefore, areas with varying dimensions (which otherwise satisfy the requirements of the location of the claimed regions) within the disclosed material/composition satisfy the limitation “region.”
Regarding claims 4 and 11, modified Hayashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Hayashi does not explicitly disclose a ratio of a width of the second overlapping region to a width of the second doped region is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the second overlapping region and the second doped region with respective widths such that a ratio of the widths is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.1 because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
It is further noted that with regard to the limitation “region,” the limitation does not specify a structural boundary defined by a difference in material composition, therefore, areas with varying dimensions (which otherwise satisfy the requirements of the location of the claimed regions) within the disclosed material/composition satisfy the limitation “region.”
Regarding claims 5 and 12, modified Hayashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein a surface of the first doped region and/or a surface of the second doped region is a polished surface,” the limitation does not define the term “polished” in terms of a surface texture dimensions or roughness values. The limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, modified Hayashi discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Hayashi further discloses the substrate is an n-type substrate ([0024]); the first doped layer is a p-type doped layer (portion of 13p in annotated Fig. 2 above); the second doped layer is an n-type doped layer (Lin - [0016]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that support for the amendment “the isolating trench is capable of penetrating the second doped layer and the first doped layer on the overlapping region” can be found, for example, at least in Fig. 2 and the text related thereto of the originally filed specification. In response to Applicant’s argument, the as-filed specification does not describe the limitation “the isolating trench is capable of penetrating the second doped layer and the first doped layer on the overlapping region,” as set forth above in the office action.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention requires the isolation trench is a
physical gap.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the claims do not recite or require a physical gap. Additionally, the claims do not specify the contents of the trench.
Applicant argues that the function of the i-type amorphous semiconductor film 13i
disclosed by Hayashi differs from that of the claimed isolation trench.
In response to Applicant's argument, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the function of the claimed isolation trench) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues the vertical portion 13i located between layer 12n and layer 13p does not penetrate layer 12n and layer 13p (see Fig. 2 of Hayashi), and therefore, Hayashi fails to disclose or teach “the isolating trench is capable of penetrating the second doped layer and the first doped layer on the overlapping region.
In response to Applicant’s argument, a region in 12n in Hayashi corresponds to the claimed first doped region, and a region in 13p corresponds to the claimed second doped region, as set forth in the office action. With regard to the claimed first doped layer and second doped layer, the first doped layer in Hayashi is depicted in annotated Fig. 2 in the office action, and the second doped layer is depicted as 30a in Fig. 2 of Hayashi. The vertical portion of 13i in Fig. 2 (isolating trench) is between 30a and the first doped layer (depicted in annotated Fig. 2 in the office action) on the overlapping region (vertical portion of 13i between region in 12n and region in 13p in Fig. 2).
Applicant argues that the claimed overlapping region 103 includes the first doped layer and the second doped layer located in the second doped region.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the claims do not recite or require the overlapping region to include the first doped layer and the second doped layer located in the second doped region. Instead, claim 1 recites “there are a first doped region, a second doped region and an overlapping region on the first surface, the first doped region and the second doped region are arranged in a staggered manner, and the overlapping region is located between the first doped region and the second doped region; the overlapping region has an isolating trench for insulating contact between the first doped region and the second doped region; a first doped layer formed on the first doped region and the overlapping region; a second doped layer formed on the first doped layer on the overlapping region and the second doped region, wherein a conductivity type of the second doped layer is opposite to a conductivity type of the first doped layer; wherein the isolating trench is capable of penetrating the second doped layer and the first doped layer on the overlapping region; the overlapping region is divided by the isolating trench into a first overlapping region and a second overlapping region; the first overlapping region is close to the first doped region, and the second overlapping region is close to the second doped region.”
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the overlapping region in the present application includes portions of both the first doped layer and the second doped layer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the overlapping region disclosed by Hayashi does not include the second doped layer. In response to Applicant’s argument, the claims do not require the overlapping region to include the second doped layer, as set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 10 and 11 of the Remarks, directed to the effects of the claimed back contact solar cell, are not commensurate with the structure claimed. A structure satisfying the limitations claimed does not necessarily result in the effects described, i.e., the structure/materials claimed are not commensurate in scope with the structure/materials described in the as-filed specification which result in the effects described. The structure disclosed by Hayashi satisfies the structure claimed as set forth in the office action. It is further noted that paragraph [0076] of the as-filed specification describes the isolating trench 1030 is filled by the first surface passivation layer 13, and paragraph [0077] of the as-filed specification describes the material of the first surface passivation layer 13 may be one or more of silicon nitride, silicon oxide, silicon oxynitride, aluminum oxide, silicon carbide, and amorphous silicon; while Hayashi discloses in paragraph [0038] that 13i is made of amorphous silicon including hydrogen.
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 TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights