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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-2, 4-5, and 7-9 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. Specifically, lines 14 and 15 of claim 1 recite “wherein a surface of the first doped region and/or a surface of the second doped region is a polished surface being capable of light reflection,” however, the manner in which the phrase “polished surface” structurally/functionally limits the claim is unclear because surfaces contain texture, at least to some degree, and are capable of light reflection, at least to an extent, and the structural characteristics required in order to satisfy the limitation “polished” is unclear. The term “polished” does not specify a degree of smoothness (or roughness) rendering the claim indefinite. Claims 2, 4-5, and 7-9 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1.
Claim 2 is 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 3 and 4 recite “a velvety structure being capable of light trapping and anti-reflection,” however, the structure required to satisfy the limitation is unclear because a textured structure is capable of light trapping and anti-reflection, and a velvety structure being capable of light trapping and anti-reflection, and the manner in which the limitation “velvety structure” differs from a limitation requiring a textured structure is unclear. It is noted that surfaces are textured, at least to a degree, and a degree of smoothness (or roughness) is not specified rendering the difference between a structure with a velvety structure and a non-velvety structure unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 4-5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, Chen et al. (CN113394304A – see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a back contact solar cell ([n0005]) comprising: a substrate comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other (10 in Fig. 3), wherein the first surface comprises a first doped region (region of the surface of 10 corresponding to left 21 in Fig. 3), a second doped region (region of the surface of 10 corresponding to right 21 in Fig. 3) and a third region (region of surface of 10 in Fig. 3 between region of the surface of 10 corresponding to left 21 and region of the surface of the 10 corresponding to right 21), the first doped region and the second doped region are arranged in a staggered manner (surface of 10 corresponding to left 21 in relation to surface of 10 corresponding to right 21 in Fig. 3; it is noted that the claim does not specify the manner in which the regions are staggered), and the third region is located between the first doped region and the second doped region (region of surface of 10 in Fig. 3 between region of the surface of 10 corresponding to left 21 and region of the surface of the 10 corresponding to right 21); a first doped layer (232 of left 23 in Fig. 1) and a second doped layer (213 of left 21 in Fig. 1) sequentially formed on the first doped region (232 of left 23 and 213 of left 21 in relation to the region of the surface of 10 corresponding to left 21), wherein a conductivity type of the first doped layer is opposite to a conductivity type of the second doped layer ([n0066]); a third doped layer formed on the second doped region (213 of right 21 in Fig. 1), wherein a conductivity type of the third doped layer is opposite to the conductivity type of the first doped layer ([n0065]); and a first electrode (left 40 in Fig. 3) and a second electrode (right 40 in Fig. 3), wherein the first electrode is electrically contacted with the second doped layer (left 40 in relation to left lower 21 in Fig. 3), and the second electrode is electrically contacted with the third doped layer (right 40 in relation to right lower 21 in Fig. 3); wherein the back contact solar cell further comprises a first interface passivation layer, a second interface passivation layer and a third interface passivation layer, wherein the first interface passivation layer is located between the substrate and the first doped layer (212 in left 21 in Fig. 1), the second interface passivation layer is located between the first doped layer and the second doped layer (231 in left 23 in Fig. 1), and the third interface passivation layer is located between the substrate and the third doped layer (212 in right 21 in Fig. 1), and the first interface passivation layer, the second interface passivation layer and the third interface passivation layer are silicon oxide interface passivation layers ([n0072],[n0083]), wherein, along a staggering direction of the first doped region and the second doped region, a width of the first doped region is greater than a width of the second doped region (note: the claim does not specify structural or material boundaries that delineate the recited first doped region and second doped region, therefore, a region of the surface of 10 corresponding to the left 21 in Fig. 3 with a width that is greater than a width of a region of the surface of 10 corresponding to the right 21 in Fig. 3 satisfies the limitation).
It is noted that if Chen does not anticipate the limitation “wherein, along a staggering direction of the first doped region and the second doped region, a width of the first doped region is greater than a width of the second doped region,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first doped region with a width which is greater than a width of the second doped region along a staggering direction of the first and second doped regions 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).
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,” it is noted that the limitation is directed to the manner in which the product is made, and 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).
Additionally, regarding the limitation “being capable of light reflection,” the claim
does not specify the degree of reflection nor the type of light, and the substrate surface of Chen necessarily has the capability to reflect light, at least to an extent. The limitation “being capable of light reflection” is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 4, Chen, or modified Chen, discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen further discloses the second doped layer is a hydrogen-doped layer ([n0074] discloses hydrogen impurities).
Regarding claim 5, Chen, or modified Chen, discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen further discloses the first doped layer is a doped polycrystalline silicon layer ([n0084] discloses 232 includes a doped polycrystalline silicon layer), and the second doped layer and the third doped layer are doped polycrystalline silicon layers ([n0079] discloses 213 includes a doped polycrystalline silicon layer).
Regarding claim 9, Chen, or modified Chen, disclose all the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen further discloses a first surface passivation layer, wherein the first surface passivation layer covers the second doped layer, the third doped layer, and the third region (60 in Fig. 3; [n0095]); the first surface passivation layer has a first opening at a contact surface with the second doped layer (opening in 60 in Fig. 3 in which left 40 is electrically contacted with the second doped layer via the opening), the first electrode is electrically contacted with the second doped layer via the first opening (opening in 60 in Fig. 3 in which left 40 is electrically contacted with the second doped layer via the opening); the first surface passivation layer has a second opening at a contact surface with the third doped layer (opening in 60 in Fig. 3 in which right 40 is electrically contacted with the third doped layer via the opening), the second electrode is electrically contacted with the third doped layer via the second opening (opening in 60 in Fig. 3 in which right 40 is electrically contacted with the third doped layer via the opening).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN113394304A – see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Chen, or modified Chen, discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Chen does not explicitly disclose along a staggering direction of the first
doped region and the second doped region, a width of the third region is 10 ~ 100 microns, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the third region of Chen such that a width of the third region is 10 ~ 100 microns 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. While Chen discloses in [n0065] that the polarity of the first region is opposite to that of the silicon substrate 10, therefore, Chen fails to disclose the limitation of claim 7 which requires the substrate is an n-type substrate, the first doped layer is a p-type doped layer, and the second doped layer and the third doped layers are n-type doped layers; or, the substrate is a p-type substrate, the first doped layer is an n-type doped layer, and the second doped layer and the third doped layer are p-type doped layers; in conjunction with the limitations required in claim 1 from which claim 7 depends. It is further noted that there is not a motivation in the prior art for one skilled in the art to modify Chen in order for the second and third doped layers to have the same polarity as the substrate, while satisfying the other limitations required in claims 1 and 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference 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 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