DETAILED ACTION
This is the second Office Action regarding application number 18/711,868, filed on 05/20/2024, which is a 371 of PCT/CN2023/081171, filed on 03/13/2023, and which claims foreign priority to CN 202210239656.3, filed on 03/11/2022.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 02/19/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12, 15, and 17-23 are currently pending.
Claims 13, 14, and 16 are canceled.
Claims 1, 4, and 12 are amended.
Claim 23 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-12, 15, and 17-22 are examined below.
The Office’s objections to claims have been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
Upon further examination, the Office has set forth a new ground of rejection.
No claim is allowed.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments received 02/19/2026 have been carefully considered but they are not found persuasive at this time. The examiner makes special note and thanks the applicant for the well-written and easy-to-understand arguments and explanation of its positions.
Both the applicant and the examiner recognize that the width difference of the seed and conducting layers in KIM is due to its process of manufacture, specifically an etch process forming an undercut. The applicant argues that this difference is material and suggests non-obviousness, and also posits that the width different is associated with a specific optoelectronic performance and reliability optimization goal. Remarks 6. The examiner respectfully declines to adopt the applicant’s position at this time. Independent claim 1 recites no such specific or distinguishing performance values, and also does not appear to have any written support in its application-as-filed to underpin said position.
The applicant also asserts that KIM does not disclose a seed layer being “an independent structural layer with a defined, uniform width” (Remarks 6-7) but the applicant’s position is not commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention: no limitation requires a “defined, uniform width” across the entire thickness of KIM’s seed layer. See generally MPEP 2145.
The applicant further asserts that KIM “has no disclosure or discussion of design intent regarding any proportional relationship between this numerical range and the width of the printed electrode layer”. Remarks 7. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. MPEP 2145(II). The prior art is not required to disclose an identical motivation or benefit of a particular recited feature as is recognized by the applicant. The recitation of an additional advantage associated with doing what the prior art suggests does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable invention.
None of the applicant’s other statements provide any other unique rebuttal or other probative evidence supported by the applicant’s disclosure-as-filed, and are generally understood only to reinforce the applicant’s positions addressed by the examiner above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (US 2018/0226523 A1).
Regarding claim 1, KIM teaches an electrode structure of a solar cell, comprising
a conducting layer (42b), wherein one end, configured to be connected to the solar cell, of the conducting layer is provided with a seed layer (424),
a width of the seed layer is less than that of the conducting layer (a width W21 at the interface of the seed layer and conducting layer is less than W2 or (W22+W21+W22), Fig. 1), and
a predetermined surface of the conducting layer and the surface of the solar cell form a suspended structure (undercut UC forms a “suspended” structure),
the predetermined surface is a surface of the conducting layer proximate to the seed layer and not covered by the seed layer (see illustration of Fig. 1 showing this arrangement of layers).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
KIM further teaches that the width of the seed layer = (20%-98%) * a width of the conducting layer: width W2 may be 100-500 micrometers (para. 64) and W22 may be 1-10 micrometers (para. 67). Thus, the width range of the surface of the seed layer 424 contacting the conducting layer 42b is 100-20=80 micrometers at minimum to 500-2=498 micrometers at maximum. If W22 is selected to be 10 micrometers and W2 is selected to be 100 micrometers, then the width of the seed layer is 80 micrometers compared to the width of the conducting layer 100 micrometers yields a ratio of 80%, within the range claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. The examiner reviewed the applicant’s application-as-filed and finds no apparent criticality of the recited width relationship.
Regarding claim 6, KIM teaches the electrode structure of the solar cell according to claim 1, wherein the conducting layer is made of a conductive metal, materials of the conducting layer comprise one or more of Cu, Ag and Al (“second layer 424 may be formed of a metal having excellent reflection properties and may include, for example, Cu, Al, Ag, Au, or an alloy thereof,” para. 58).
Regarding claim 7, KIM teaches the electrode structure of the solar cell according to claim 6, wherein the conducting layer is prepared by one of PVD, screen printing, chemical vapor deposition, electroplating, or electroless plating (para. 71 describes the conducting layer 42b as printed using a pattern, which is equivalent to screen printing; para. 72 discusses plating alternatives).
Regarding claim 9, KIM teaches the electrode structure of the solar cell according to claim 1, wherein a suspended average height of the suspended structure ranges from 10nm-50 µm, and the suspended average height is a distance between the predetermined surface and the surface of the solar cell (layer 424 has a thickness of 50-400nm, para. 59, overlapping with the range claimed).
Regarding claim 10, KIM teaches the electrode structure of the solar cell according to claim 8, wherein the surface of the solar cell is also provided with a layer of dielectric film (layer 40), the dielectric film is provided with an opening exposing a part of the surface of the solar cell, and the seed layer is locally in contact with the solar cell through the opening (layer 424 contacts solar cell through the opening in layer 40).
Regarding claim 12, KIM teaches the electrode structure of the solar cell according to claim 1, wherein a width of the conducting layer - the width of the seed layer is > 5 µm (undercut UC width can be about 1-10 micrometers on each edge (thus doubled to about 2-20 micrometers), thus overlapping with the edge of the range claimed of >5, para. 67),
or the width of the seed layer = (30%-90%) * a width of the conducting layer,
or the seed layer is formed by stacking a plurality of sub-seed layers.
Regarding claim 15, KIM teaches the electrode structure of the solar cell according to claim 12, wherein the width of the conducting layer - the width of the seed layer is > 10 µm (undercut UC width can be about 1-10 micrometers on each edge (thus doubled to about 2-20 micrometers), thus overlapping with the edge of the range claimed, para. 67).
Regarding claim 17, KIM teaches the electrode structure of the solar cell according to claim 12, wherein content of functional components of the sub-seed layers stacked gradually decreases in a direction away from the solar cell (claim 12 does not require sub-seed layers, thus claim 17 is optional).
Regarding claim 18, KIM teaches the electrode structure of the solar cell according to claim 1, wherein the thickness of the seed layer is 10nm-1000nm (424 has layer thickness of 50-400nm, within the range claimed, para. 59).
Regarding claim 19, KIM teaches the electrode structure of the solar cell according to claim 11, wherein the thickness of the conducting layer is 1-800µm (layer 42b has thickness of about 5-50 micrometers, within the claimed range, para. 72).
Regarding claims 20-22, KIM teaches the solar cell, comprising the electrode structure according to claim 1, also constructed to form a solar cell and solar cell module, which is only an obvious duplication of solar cells.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (US 2018/0226523 A1) in view of NEE (US 2007/0131276 A1).
Regarding claims 2-4, KIM teaches the electrode structure of the solar cell according to claim 1, wherein the seed layer is made of an alloy material (“second layer 424 may be formed of a metal having excellent reflection properties and may include, for example, Cu, Al, Ag, Au, or an alloy thereof,” para. 58), but does not disclose expressly that components of the seed layer comprise a functional component and a strengthening component, the functional component and the strengthening component being mixed in a certain ratio (claim 2), that the functional component is a metal having an average refractive index of less than 2 in the wavelength range of 850nm-1200nm (claim 3), or that the functional component is one or more of Al, Ag, Cu and Mg, and the strengthening component comprises any one or more of Mo, Ni, Ti, W, Cr, Si, Mn, Pd, Bi, Nb, Ta, Pa and V, wherein content ratio of the functional component is >50%,and the content ratio of the functional component is a ratio of content of the functional component to a total content, the total content is a sum of the content of the functional component and content of the strengthening component (claim 4).
NEE teaches a conductive layer using an alloy of at least silver with another element such as nickel, in an amount of 0.05-5 atomic percent (para. 11), because this allows for the construction of photo-voltaic cells with thinner and less expensive transparent conductive layers.
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify KIM and combine the seed layer elements to include silver Ag and nickel Ni in the claimed amounts for the construction of photo-voltaic cells with thinner and less expensive transparent conductive layers as taught by NEE.
Regarding claim 5, KIM teaches the electrode structure of the solar cell according to claim 2, wherein the seed layer is prepared by one of Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD), screen printing, chemical vapor deposition, electroplating, or electroless plating (layer 424 formed by plating, para. 61-62).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM (US 2018/0226523 A1) in view of CALNAN (“Applications of Oxide Coatings in Photovoltaic Devices”).
Regarding claims 8 and 11, KIM teaches the electrode structure of the solar cell according to claim 1, but does not disclose expressly that the electrode structure further comprising a protective layer provided on the surface of the conducting layer away from the seed layer, wherein the protective layer is prepared by Sn or Ag, and the protective layer is prepared by one of PVD, screen printing, chemical vapor deposition, electroplating, or electroless plating (claim 8) or that a transparent conductive film (422) is also provided between the seed layer and the dielectric film (insulating layer 40), and a part of the transparent conductive film is in contact with the solar cell through the opening provided in the dielectric film (422 connects thru the opening to the solar cell, Fig. 2) (claim 11 does not disclose an oxide specifically).
CALNAN describes examples where a transparent conductive oxide film including tin (Sn) is employed within the layer stack of a solar cell (Fig. 4), and mentions that physical vapor deposition is used to produce metal oxide layers (pg. 172).
PNG
media_image2.png
367
601
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify KIM and insert a TCO layer including tin as a protective layer or between a seed layer and dielectric film because CALNAN explains that TCOs can replace many layers within the solar cell stack for the purpose of light management, passivation of electrical defects, and charge separation/transport (abstract).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The 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). The Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner
Prosecution Insights