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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 16 of claim 1 appears to contain a typographical error in the recitation “wherein a width of the overlapping region ranges from 60μ to 860μ.” For the purpose of this office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it states wherein a width of the overlapping region ranges from 60 μm to 860 μm. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3 and 4 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, claim 3 recites the limitation "the first protecting layer" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 3.
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, 5, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113394304A – cited on 03/20/2024 IDS, see machine translation cited on 09/11/2025 PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, CN ‘304 discloses a back-contact cell ([n0001]) comprising: a substrate, wherein the substrate has a first surface and a second surface facing to each other (10 in Fig. 3), on the first surface, there are a first doping region and a second doping region arranged in a staggered way ([n0058]; 21 and 22 in Fig. 3; it is noted that with regard to the limitation “region,” any portion of the disclosed structure which satisfies the limitations “first doping” and “second doping,” respectively, satisfies the limitation; respective regions are shown in annotated Fig. 3 below), an overlapping region (shown in annotated Fig. 3 below) and a third region that are located between the first doping region and the second doping region (shown in annotated Fig.3 below), the overlapping region is close to the first doping region (shown in annotated Fig. 3 below); a first doping layer formed on the first doping region and the overlapping region (layer in Fig. 3 corresponding to 213 in Fig. 1; shown in annotated Fig. 3 below); a second doping layer formed on the first doping layer (layer in 21 of Fig. 3 corresponding to 232 in Fig. 1; shown in annotated Fig. 3 below), wherein the second doping layer is only located at an upper portion of the overlapping region (shown in annotated Fig. 3 below; it is noted that the limitation “upper” is dependent on the spatial orientation of the device), and a conductive type of the first doping layer is opposite to the conductive type of the second doping layer ([n0066]); a third doping layer formed on the second doping region (213 of Fig. 1 in 22 of Fig. 3; shown in annotated Fig. 3 below), wherein a conductive type of the third doping layer is opposite to the conductive type of the first doping layer ([n0066]); and a first electrode and a second electrode, wherein the first electrode is electrically contacted with the first doping layer (40 in Fig. 3), and the second electrode is electrically contacted with the third doping layer (50 in Fig. 3).
CN ‘304 does not explicitly disclose a width of the overlapping region ranges from 60 to 860 microns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the overlapping region of CN ‘304 with a width ranging from 60 to 860 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).
Regarding claim 3, modified CN ‘304 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. CN ‘304 further discloses the first protecting layer comprises a dielectric layer ([n0094]).
Regarding claim 5, modified CN ‘304 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein a surface of the third region has a textured surface,” a surface of a region (or any portion of a surface) in which 24 in Fig. 3 of CN ‘304 is located is necessarily textured because all surfaces contain texture at least to a degree; it is noted that the limitation “textured” does not specify an amount of degree of texture; it is further noted that the limitation “textured” is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is made, and recitations directed to the manner in which a device is made 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 claim 8, modified CN ‘304 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. CN ‘304 further discloses the substrate is an n-type substrate ([n0064]), the first doping layer is a p-type doping layer ([n0058]; doping region 21), the second doping layer and the third doping layer are n-type doping layers ([n0058], [n0061] disclose 232 has the same polarity as doping area 22).
Regarding claim 9, modified CN ‘304 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. CN ‘304 further discloses the back-contact cell further comprises a first surface passivation layer covering the first doping layer, the second doping layer, the third doping layer and the third region (60 in annotated Fig. 3 below; it is noted that the limitation “cover” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components); and a contacting surface of the first surface passivation layer and the first doping layer has a first opening, the first electrode is electrically contacted with the first doping layer through the first opening (40 and the first doping layer in annotated Fig. 3 below are electrically contacted through opening in 60); and a contacting surface of the first surface passivation layer and the third doping layer has a second opening, the second electrode is electrically contacted with the third doping layer through the second opening (50 and the third doping layer in annotated Fig. 3 below are electrically contacted through opening in 60).
Regarding claim 10, modified CN ‘034 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein an area of the first doping layer located on the overlapping region accounts for 5% - 95% of an area of entire first doping layer,” claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, requires an overlapping region between the first and second doping regions, and the overlapping region is close to the first doping region, however, the claims do not define a material or structural boundary which defines the limits of the recited regions, therefore, any portion of the area between portions which are doped satisfy the limitation “overlapping 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 doping layer such that an area which accounts for 5% - 95% of an area of the entire first doping layer is located on the overlapping region in CN ‘034, 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).
Regarding claim 11, modified CN ‘034 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein an area of the first doping layer located on the overlapping region accounts for 40% - 75% of an area of entire first doping layer,” claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, requires an overlapping region between the first and second doping regions, and the overlapping region is close to the first doping region, however, the claims do not define a material or structural boundary which defines the limits of the recited regions, therefore, any portion of the area between portions which are doped satisfy the limitation “overlapping 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 doping layer such that an area which accounts for 40% - 75% of an area of the entire first doping layer is located on the overlapping region in CN ‘034, 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).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (first doping region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (overlapping region)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second doping region)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (third region)][AltContent: textbox (third interface passivation layer)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (third doping layer)][AltContent: textbox (second doping layer)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first interface passivation layer)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first doping layer)]
PNG
media_image1.png
479
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113394304A – cited on 03/20/2024 IDS, see machine translation cited on 09/11/2025 PTO-892, as applied to claim 3 above, in view of Moslehi et al. (WO2014127067A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified CN ‘304 discloses all the claim limitations as set
forth above. While modified CN ‘304 does disclose the first protecting layer comprises one or more combinations of aluminum oxide layers, silicon nitride layers, silicon oxynitride layer, silicon carbide layers, amorphous silicon layer and silicon oxide layers (CN ‘304 - [n0038]); modified CN ‘304 does not explicitly disclose the first protecting layer comprises one of a boron-silicon glass layer and a phosphorous silicon glass layer.
Moslehi discloses a back-contact cell (abstract) and further discloses backside dielectric compositions may consist of doped or undoped silicon-oxide glasses such as boron-silicate glass (BSG), phosphorus-silicate glass (PSG) or undoped-silicate glass (USG) or of other dielectrics such as aluminum oxide or silicon nitride, doped or undoped, or a combination thereof ([0276]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the dielectric layer of the first protecting layer of modified CN ‘304 with a boron-silicon glass layer or a phosphorous silicon glass layer, because as evidenced by Moslehi, the use of either a boron-silicon glass layer or a phosphorous silicon glass layer as a dielectric layer in a back-contact solar cell amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the dielectric layer of the first protection layer of modified CN ‘304 of a boron-silicon glass layer or a phosphorous silicon glass layer based on the teaching of Moslehi.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that CN ‘304 is entirely silent regarding the lateral width of these layers. Applicant further argues that while CN ‘304 details various vertical height differences (e.g., teaching a height difference of 1-8 microns or 0.5-8 microns) and specific thicknesses (e.g., 5-150 nm for the insulating layer), it discloses no lateral widths for the overlapping protection zone.
In response to Applicant’s argument, claim 1 recites “an overlapping region and a
third region that are located between the first doping region and the second doping region, the overlapping region is close to the first doping region” in lines 4 through 6. Claim 1 further recites “a first doping layer formed on the first doping region and the overlapping region” in line 7, and “a second doping layer formed on the first doping layer, wherein the second doping layer is only located at an upper portion of the overlapping region” in lines 8 and 9. As set forth in the office action, a region which satisfies the limitations of claim 1 with regard to the recited “overlapping region” is shown in annotated Fig. 3 above. Applicant’s arguments directed to the lateral width of the layers, and the lateral widths for an overlapping protection zone, are not commensurate with the requirements recited in claim 1 with regard to the claimed “overlapping region.” The limitations set forth in claim 1 with regard to the claimed “overlapping region” are satisfied as set forth in the office action.
Applicant argues that the claimed dimension is critical to solving a specific problem not recognized by the prior art, and produces unexpected results. Applicant further argues that the recited range is a critical parameter for electrical performance (preventing leakage), not a mere routine optimization of size.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Applicant has not provided evidence of unexpected results achieved with a structure commensurate in scope with the limitations recited in the claims. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(d): Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
Unexpected results must be established by factual evidence; mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification do not suffice. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1977) (quoting In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Mere conclusions in the as-filed specification and Applicant’s Remarks, without
evidence in support of the assertions, are insufficient in showing the criticality of the claimed range. MPEP 716.02(d) II. states “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside of the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).” It is also well settled that where patentability is predicated upon a change in a condition of a prior art composition, such as a change in size, concentration or the like, the burden is on the applicant to establish with objective evidence that the change is critical, i.e., it leads to a new, unexpected result. In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
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