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 § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 113394304A – cited on 03/20/2024 IDS, hereinafter referred to as CN ‘ 304, 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 further discloses the back-contact cell further comprises a first protecting layer (60 in Fig. 3) that is located at the upper portion of the overlapping region (60 extends to an upper portion of the overlapping region annotated in Fig. 3 below; it is noted that the limitation “upper” is dependent on the spatial orientation of the device) and located between the first doping layer and the second doping layer (60 at the upper portion of the overlapping region in annotated Fig. 3 below is between the first and second doping layers).
CN ‘304 further discloses the back-contact cell further comprises a first interface passivation layer located between the substrate and the first doping layer (shown in annotated Fig. 3 below), a second interface passivation layer located between the second doping layer and the first protecting layer (layer between outer 60 ([n0095] discloses 60 is a multi-layer structure) and second doping layer shown in annotated Fig. 3 below), and a third interface passivation layer located between the substrate and the third doping layer (shown in annotated Fig. 3 below).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “the second interface passivation layer and the third interface passivation layer are formed in a same step,” 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).
Regarding claim 3, 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, 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, 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, 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).
[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 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 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, CN ‘304 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. While 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 ([n0038]); 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 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 CN ‘304 of a boron-silicon glass layer or a phosphorous silicon glass layer based on the teaching of Moslehi.
Claims 10 and 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, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, 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, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that CN ‘304 does not explicitly disclose the second interface passivation layer and the third interface passivation layer are formed in a same step. In response to Applicant’s argument, as set forth in the office action, 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).
Applicant has not provided evidence that the limitation “the second interface
passivation layer and the third interface passivation layer are formed in a same step” results in a structure which differs from that disclosed by CN ‘034 in which the second interface passivation layer is located between the second doping layer and the first protecting layer (second interface passivation layer between outer 60 ([n0095] discloses 60 is a multi-layer structure) and second doping layer shown in annotated Fig. 3 above), and a third interface passivation layer located between the substrate and the third doping layer (shown in annotated Fig. 3 above).
It is noted that the claim amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections
set forth in the previous office action.
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