DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scardera et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0065764 A1 (the ‘764 reference).
Referring to claim 1, the ‘764 reference discloses a method for preparing a solar cell, the preparation method comprising: performing a (an inherent) texturing process (Fig. 4A, para [29] (paragraph(s) [0029]), and note that a texturing process is inherently required to form the textured silicon wafer of Fig. 4A) and a boron or phosphorus diffusion process (para [47], Fig. 5G) sequentially, wherein the preparation method further comprises, between the texturing process and the boron or phosphorus diffusion process:
heating (“heated”, para [40]) a silicon wafer (501, para [40]) that has been wet-textured (texturing a silicon wafer for forming a solar cell is notoriously performed in a solution; hence, wet; see, for example, Hama et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20110143486, para [10], step (111) or Tohoda et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170179315, para [50]) loaded in a wafer cassette (a tube furnace, para [40]) to form a first oxide layer (SiO2 503, Fig. 5B, para [40]) on both front and back sides of the silicon wafer (501) to (inherently) absorb impurities in the silicon wafer; and
removing the first oxide layer (503) on the front and back sides of the silicon wafer (para [46], Figs. 5D-5E).
3. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scardera et al. U.S. Patent 9,059,341 B1 (the ‘341 reference).
Referring to claim 1, the ‘341 reference discloses a method for preparing a solar cell, the preparation method comprising: performing a texturing process (Fig. 4A, col. 2, lines 37-40, “FIG. 4A shows the texturizing step”) and a [boron or] phosphorus diffusion process (col. 5, lines 47-55, Fig. 4I) sequentially, wherein the preparation method further comprises, between the texturing process and the boron or phosphorus diffusion process:
heating (“heated”, col. 4, lines 38-42) a silicon wafer (401, col. 4, lines 32-35) that has been wet-textured (texturing a silicon wafer for forming a solar cell is notoriously performed in a solution; hence, wet; see, for example, Hama et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20110143486, para [10], step (111) or Tohoda et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20170179315, para [50]) loaded in a wafer cassette (a tube furnace, col. 4, lines 38-42) to form a first oxide layer (SiO2 403, Fig. 4C, col. 4, lines 38-42) on both front and back sides of the silicon wafer (401) to (inherently) absorb impurities in the silicon wafer; and
removing the first oxide layer (403) on the front and back sides of the silicon wafer (paragraph bridging cols. 4 and 5, Figs. 4E-4F).
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.
4. Claims 2, 6-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Scardera et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0065764 A1 (the ‘764 reference).
Referring to claim 2, although the reference does not specifically disclose dimensions as claimed, the claimed dimensions (wherein a thickness of the first oxide layer is within a range of 4 nm to 5 nm) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art (the ‘764 reference discloses that a thickness of the first oxide layer (503) is within a range of 10 nm to 100 nm, para [40-41]) unless there is evidence indicating such dimensions are critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation"; MPEP 2144.05.
Referring to claim 6, the reference discloses a method for preparing a solar cell as detailed above for claim 1 and further disclose that the method of removing the first oxide layer (503) on the front and back sides of the silicon wafer (501) comprises: cleaning the silicon wafer using a cleaning agent, and the cleaning agent comprises HF (para [46]).
In a manner similar to that detailed above for claim 2, although the reference does not specifically disclose dimensions as claimed, the claimed dimensions (wherein a cleaning time is within a range of 30s to 50s) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art (it requires a time dimension to clean the silicon wafer) unless there is evidence indicating such dimensions are critical.
Referring to claim 7, in a manner similar to that detailed above for claim 2, although the reference does not specifically disclose dimensions as claimed, the claimed dimensions (the cleaning agent comprises the HF with a volume concentration of 15% to 30%) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art (the reference discloses that the cleaning agent comprises the HF with a certain volume concentration (“dilute”, para [46])) unless there is evidence indicating such dimensions are critical.
Referring to claim 11, the reference discloses a method for preparing a solar cell as detailed above for claim 6 and further disclose that after the cleaning the silicon wafer using the cleaning agent, a second oxide layer (SiO2 508, Fig. 5F, para [47]) is formed on a surface of the silicon wafer (501), and the boron or phosphorus diffusion process is performed on the silicon wafer formed with the second oxide layer on a surface thereof (Fig. 5G, para [47]).
4.1. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Scardera et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0065764 A1 (the ‘764 reference) as applied above for claim 11 in view of Tsugeno et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20160118512.
Referring to claim 12, the ‘764 reference discloses forming the second oxide layer as detailed above for claim 11, but does not disclose that the method of forming the second oxide layer comprises purging the silicon wafer with ozone.
Tsugeno, in disclosing a method for preparing a solar cell (Abstract) comprising cleaning a silicon wafer (silicon substrate), teach purging the silicon wafer with ozone to remove contaminants (para [42]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reference’s method to comprise purging the silicon wafer with ozone. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in view of the teachings in Tsugeno to remove contaminants.
5. Claims 2 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Scardera et al. U.S. Patent 9,059,341 B1 (the ‘341 reference).
Referring to claim 2, although the reference does not specifically disclose dimensions as claimed, the claimed dimensions (wherein a thickness of the first oxide layer is within a range of 4 nm to 5 nm) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art (the ‘341 reference discloses that a thickness of the first oxide layer (503) is within a range of 10 nm to 100 nm, col. 4, lines 43-50) unless there is evidence indicating such dimensions are critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation"; MPEP 2144.05.
Referring to claim 6, the reference discloses a method for preparing a solar cell as detailed above for claim 1 and further disclose that the method of removing the first oxide layer (403) on the front and back sides of the silicon wafer (401) comprises: cleaning the silicon wafer using a cleaning agent, and the cleaning agent comprises HF (paragraph bridging cols. 4 & 5).
In a manner similar to that detailed above for claim 2, although the reference does not specifically disclose dimensions as claimed, the claimed dimensions (wherein a cleaning time is within a range of 30s to 50s) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art (it requires a time dimension to clean the silicon wafer) unless there is evidence indicating such dimensions are critical.
Referring to claim 7, in a manner similar to that detailed above for claim 2, although the reference does not specifically disclose dimensions as claimed, the claimed dimensions (the cleaning agent comprises the HF with a volume concentration of 15% to 30%) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art (the reference discloses that the cleaning agent comprises the HF with a certain volume concentration (“dilute”, paragraph bridging cols. 4 & 5)) unless there is evidence indicating such dimensions are critical.
Referring to claim 8, the reference further discloses that the cleaning agent further comprises HCl (col. 12, lines 37-44, “wafers were then dipped in a dilute hydrofluoric acid and hydrochloric acid solution to remove the oxide layer. Wafers were cleaned in a hot mixture of H2O2, HCl and water, followed by HF:HCl to remove any residual boron paste and to clean the wafer surface”).
Referring to claims 9-10, in a manner similar to that detailed above for claim 2, although the reference does not specifically disclose dimensions as claimed, the claimed dimensions (claim 9: wherein the cleaning agent further comprises the HCl with a volume concentration of 5% to 10%; claim 10: wherein the cleaning agent comprises the HF and the HCl with a volume ratio of 3:1) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art (the reference discloses that the cleaning agent comprises HCL with a certain volume concentration (HCL and water, col. 12, lines 37-44) and that the cleaning agent comprises the HF and the HCl with a certain volume ratio (HF:HCL, col. 12, lines 37-44)) unless there is evidence indicating such dimensions are critical.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited art, whether taken singularly or in combination, especially when all limitations are considered within the claimed specific combination, fails to teach or render obvious a method for preparing a solar cell with all exclusive limitations as recited in claims 3 and 4, which may be characterized (claim 3) in that the silicon wafer is an n-type monocrystalline silicon wafer, and the solar cell comprises a passivation/anti-reflection film, a passivation layer, a p-type emitter, an n-type monocrystalline silicon wafer substrate, a tunneling oxide layer, an n-type polysilicon film, and an anti-reflection film that are stacked, and (claim 4) in that the first preset temperature is within a range of 600° C to 800° C, and the first preset time is within a range of 30s to 60s.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TU TU V HO whose telephone number is (571)272-1778. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday 6:30 - 15:00, Monday through Thursday.
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, Jeff W Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
07-15-2026
/TU-TU V HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights