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 § 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(s) 1-5 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu et al. (CN 105826403; see English machine translation provided by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Qu discloses a solar cell front passivation film layer (passive antireflection film structure; see Figure 1), wherein the solar cell front passivation film layer comprises a silicon substrate (single crystal silicon chip substrate; abstract), on a surface of which are sequentially laminated a first silicon nitride layer (SiNx layer 1), a second silicon nitride layer (SiNx layer 2) and a silicon oxynitride layer (SiOxNy layer 3),
wherein refractive indexes of the first silicon nitride layer, the second silicon nitride layer and the silicon oxynitride layer are gradually reduced (it is disclosed the refractive index of the layers are gradually reduced in the same order; [0010] and [0011]);
the silicon oxynitride layer has a thickness of 40 nm to 60 nm (it is disclosed the thickness of the SiOxNy layer can be 40 nm; [0038]), and
the first silicon nitride layer has a thickness of 5 nm to 15 nm (it is disclosed the bottom silicon nitride layer has a film thickness of 5 nm; [0038]), and the second silicon nitride layer has a thickness of 15 nm (it is disclosed the lower SiNx layer of the double layer has a thickness of 15 nm; [0038]).
While Qu does not expressly disclose the second silicon nitride layer has a thickness of 20 nm to 40 nm, it is noted that Qu further discloses the refractive index of the multi-layer SiNx layer is 1.95-2.25 and the thickness is 20-65 nm ([0010]).
Therefore, 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).
Alternatively, Qu’s 15 nm is close enough to the claimed 20 nm, such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 2, modified Qu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the silicon oxynitride layer has a refractive index of 1.4 to 1.9 (it is disclosed the refractive index of the silicon oxynitride layer is between 1.6 and 1.95 ([0011]) with 1.75 in an example ([0038])).
Regarding claim 3, modified Qu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the first silicon nitride layer has a refractive index of 2.15 to 2.4 (the first silicon nitride layer has a refractive index of 2.35; [0038]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Qu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the second silicon nitride layer has a refractive index of 1.98 to 2.2 (the second silicon nitride layer has a refractive index of 2.15; [0038]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Qu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the first silicon nitride layer has a thickness less than the second silicon nitride layer (it is disclosed the first silicon nitride layer has a film thickness of 5 nm and the second silicon nitride layer has a film thickness of 20-40 nm, as set forth above).
Regarding claim 9, modified Qu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a third silicon nitride layer is disposed between the second silicon nitride layer and the silicon oxynitride layer (upper SiNx layer of the double layer; [0038]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Qu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the third silicon nitride layer has a refractive index of 1.8 to 2.05 and a thickness of 15 nm to 40 nm (it is disclosed the upper SiNx layer has a refractive index of 2.0 and a thickness of 30 nm; [0038]).
Claim(s) 1-5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qu et al. (CN 104576770; see English machine translation provided by Applicant; hereinafter “Qu ‘770”).
Regarding claim 1, Qu ‘770 discloses a solar cell front passivation film layer (passivated anti-reflective multilayer film; see Figure 1), wherein the solar cell front passivation film layer comprises a silicon substrate (crystalline silicon high efficiency cell; abstract), on a surface of which are sequentially laminated a first silicon nitride layer (lower layer of the double SiNx layer 2), a second silicon nitride layer (upper layer of the double SiNx layer 2) and a silicon oxynitride layer (SiOxNy layer 3),
wherein refractive indexes of the first silicon nitride layer, the second silicon nitride layer and the silicon oxynitride layer are gradually reduced ([0030]);
the silicon oxynitride layer has a thickness of 40 nm to 60 nm (it is disclosed the thickness of the SiOxNy layer is 50 nm; [0030]), and
the first silicon nitride layer has a thickness of 5 nm to 15 nm (10 nm; [0030]), and the second silicon nitride layer has a thickness of 50 nm (50 nm; [0030]).
While Qu ‘770 does not expressly disclose the second silicon nitride layer has a thickness of 20 nm to 40 nm, the reference discloses the total thickness of the SiNx layers is desired to be between 30-70 nm ([0009]), where the first silicon nitride layer is disclosed to have a 10 nm thickness above, such that the second silicon nitride layer can have a thickness between 20-60 nm.
Therefore, 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).
Alternatively, Qu ‘770’s 50 nm is close enough to the claimed 40 nm, such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 2, modified Qu ‘770 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the silicon oxynitride layer has a refractive index of 1.4 to 1.9 (it is disclosed the refractive index of the silicon oxynitride layer is 1.8; [0030]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Qu ‘770 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the first silicon nitride layer has a refractive index of 2.15 to 2.4 (the first silicon nitride layer has a refractive index of 2.15; [0030]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Qu ‘770 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the second silicon nitride layer has a refractive index of 1.98 to 2.2 (the second silicon nitride layer has a refractive index of 2.0; [0030]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Qu ‘770 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the first silicon nitride layer has a thickness less than the second silicon nitride layer (it is disclosed the first silicon nitride layer has a film thickness of 10 nm and the second silicon nitride layer has a film thickness of 20 to 40 nm, as set forth above).
Regarding claim 7, modified Qu ‘770 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a silicon oxide layer (SiOx layer 1) is disposed between the silicon substrate and the first silicon nitride layer ([0030]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Qu ‘770 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the silicon oxide layer has a thickness of 2 nm to 20 nm ([0009])
While modified Qu does not expressly disclose the silicon oxide layer has a thickness of 3 nm to 15 nm, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that regarding claim 4, the Examiner asserts that Qu (paragraph [0033]) discloses the second silicon nitride layer has a refractive index of 2.15, and thus that the “second silicon nitride layer has a refractive index of 1.98 to 2.2”. Applicant further argues that paragraph [0033] of Qu states there is a double layer SiNx in the middle, and in the double layer SiNx, the refractive index of the lower layer SiNx is 2.15, such that the Examiner interprets the lower layer SiNx to be the second silicon nitride layer of the claims, but then in claim 6, the Examiner asserts that Qu discloses the upper SiNx layer has a thickness of 30 nm, thus “the second silicon nitride layer has a thickness of 20 nm to 40 nm” and the Examiner does not clarify whether the lower layer SiNx or the upper layer SiNx in Qu corresponds to the second silicon nitride layer of the present application.
However, in claim 4 of the prior Office Action, paragraph [0038] of Qu was relied upon to teach the claimed refractive index, which Applicant has correctly identified as the lower layer of the double layer SiNx. Previously presented claims 4 and 6 both depend from claim 1, such that claim 1 has only required a first and second silicon nitride layer, and such there is nothing that requires the same silicon nitride layers to be identified in claim 4 and claim 6 as long as they also read upon claim 1. Therefore, due to claim 1 being amended in the response filed on 7/30/25, a new interpretation was required as the scope of the claims have changed, such that claim 1 now requires the limitation that was previously presented in claim 6, and claim 4 still depends upon claim 1. The new interpretation of the teaching of Qu is presented in the Office Action above, such that Applicant’s argument was not found to be persuasive.
Applicant further argues that with respect to Qu ‘770, the Examiner asserts that the reference discloses a total thickness of the SiNx layer of between 30-70 nm, where the first silicon nitride layer is disclosed to have a 10 nm thickness, so the second silicon nitride layer can have a thickness between 20-60 nm is incorrect because it is not possible to conclude that the thickness of the second layer is between 20-60 nm.
However, Applicant does not elaborate on why it is not possible to conclude that the thickness of the second layer is between 20-60 nm given the teaching from Qu ‘770 stating in paragraph [0009] that the total film thickness is desired to be between 30-70 nm when there are only two SiNx layers disclosed and one of them has a thickness of 10 nm.
Applicant argues that paragraph [0025] of Qu ‘770 discloses the thickness of the upper layer SiN (corresponding to the second silicon nitride layer) is 50 nm, which is opposite to the teaching of the second silicon nitride layer thickness of 20-40 nm recited in amended claim 1.
However, the rejection under Qu ‘770 is on the basis that Qu ‘770 discloses in paragraph [0009] that the desired total film thickness of the two SiNx layers is 30-70 nm, such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the overlapping ranges, as set forth in the Office Action. Alternatively, the claimed upper boundary of 40 nm and Qu ‘770’s disclosed 50 nm is close enough that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, as set forth above.
Therefore, the argument was not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xu et al. (CN 106356411; see English machine translation) discloses a silicon substrate comprising an anti-reflection multilayer structure (100) comprising a first silicon nitride layer (110), a second silicon nitride layer (120), a third silicon nitride layer (130), and a silicon oxynitride layer (140) (see Figure 1), wherein the first silicon nitride layer has a thickness of 10 to 20 nm ([0039]), the second silicon nitride layer has a thickness of 10 to 25 nm ([0040]), and the third silicon nitride layer has a thickness of 40 to 60 nm ([0041]).
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 CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights