DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action regarding application number 18/720,871, filed on 06/17/2024, which is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/122293, filed on 09/28/2022, and which claims foreign priority to CN 202111614565.5, filed on 12/27/2021.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 09/17/2025.
Election of Restricted Inventions
The Applicant’s election of Group I and Species A2 (claims 1-5, 14-17, and 19-25) is acknowledged. The examiner rejoins claims 23-25 based on the applicant’s traversal that these claims should be examined because they are amended to depend on electrode claim 1.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 and 14-28 are currently pending.
Claims 6-13 are canceled.
Claims 18 and 26-28 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-5 and 14-17, and 19-25 are examined below.
No claim is allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the at least a portion of the collector electrode is the second section” but is unclear because this limitation appears to be circular logic. Claim 15 depends on claim 14 and is also indefinite.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the at least a portion of the collector electrode is the collector electrode” but is unclear because this limitation appears to be circular logic.
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 1-5 and 14-17, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LANDA (US 2019/0172967 A1).
Regarding claim 1, LANDA teaches an electrode of a solar cell, comprising a collector electrode (510) and a bus electrode (520) intersecting with each other (please see examiner’s annotated Fig. 5A), wherein a width of the collector electrode ranges from 5 µm to 30 µm (collector electrode widths are controlled by the groove base widths of the die roller, and are preferred to be 50 micrometers or less, para. 66), and wherein a resistivity of each of the collector electrode and the bus electrode is less than or equal to 3x10-6 Ω-cm (electrode material includes metals such as silver, aluminum, and copper, para. 88; these metals are well-known to possess electrical resistivity values within the range claimed, please see the included table as common technical evidence of known physical values).
PNG
media_image1.png
862
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
168
300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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. Here, the claimed range of collector electrode width 5-30 micron lies inside the 0-50 micron range disclosed by LANDA and is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 2, LANDA teaches the electrode according to claim 1, wherein the width of the collector electrode ranges from 10 µm to 20 µm (collector electrode widths are controlled by the groove base widths of the die roller, and are preferred to be 50 micrometers or less, para. 66; “10-20 micrometers” is specifically called out as a width range), and wherein a width of the bus electrode ranges from 30 µm to 400 µm (“For the manufacturing of solar cells, wherein rules 108 may serve for the later formation of bus bars, the width of the mesh stripe can be larger than the width of the base of rules 106.”; since LANDA already describes 50 micrometer wide grooves, this consequently reads on the range of 30-400 micrometers and is prima facie obvious, and also obvious to modify as necessary to any other width in order to properly carry the current collected from the multitude of smaller finger/collector electrodes).
PNG
media_image3.png
472
560
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, LANDA teaches the electrode according to claim 1, wherein a material of each of the collector electrode and the bus electrode comprises one or more of silver, aluminum, or copper (electrode material includes metals such as silver, aluminum, and copper, para. 88).
Regarding claim 4, LANDA teaches the electrode according to claim 1, wherein the collector electrode and the bus electrode are formed on a solar cell wafer, wherein a ratio of a thickness of the collector electrode to the width of the collector electrode ranges from 0.2 to 2, wherein the thickness of the collector electrode is measured along a direction perpendicular to the solar cell wafer (aspect ratio between height h and base width WB can be within range of 5:1 to about 1:5, para. 66, overlaps claimed range).
Regarding claim 5, LANDA teaches the electrode according to claim 1, wherein a width error of at least a portion of the collector electrode is less than or equal to 10%, wherein the width error is calculated as (w-w0)/w0, wherein w represents a width of the collector electrode measured at any point on the at least a portion of the collector electrode, and wherein w0 represents an average width of the at least a portion of the collector electrode (paras. 195-199 describes that width error/”variability” should be less than 10%, such as less than 5%).
Regarding claim 14, LANDA teaches the electrode according to claim 5, wherein the collector electrode comprises a first section, a second section, and a third section, wherein the second section is located between the first section and the third section, wherein a length of the second section accounts for 75% to 85% of a length of the collector electrode, and wherein the at least a portion of the collector electrode is the second section (first/second/third sections can be selected as desired; this limitation does not affect or further define the claimed product).
Regarding claim 15, LANDA teaches the electrode of according to claim 14, wherein the width error of the second section is less than or equal to 8% (paras. 195-199 describes that width error/”variability” should be less than 10%, such as less than 5%)..
Regarding claim 16, LANDA teaches the electrode according to claim 5, wherein the at least a portion of the collector electrode is the collector electrode (logically any portion of the collector electrode also must be the collector electrode; see also 112 rejection above).
Regarding claim 17, LANDA teaches the electrode according to claim 5, wherein widths of the collector electrode measured at all points on the collector electrode are substantially the same, and widths of the bus electrode measured at all points on the bus electrode are substantially the same (paras. 195-199 describes that width error/”variability” should be less than 10%, such as less than 5%; examiner interprets this to read on “substantially the same”).
Regarding claim 19, LANDA teaches the electrode according to claim 1, wherein a cross-sectional shape of the collector electrode is a trapezoid, and a top surface of the collector electrode is an arc surface (trapezoidal cross section, and notes “semi-circle” for the top edge, para. 66).
Regarding claim 20, LANDA teaches the electrode according to claim 4, wherein a side surface of the collector electrode and a surface of the solar cell wafer forms an acute angle (para. 164 teaches acute angles).
Regarding claim 21, LANDA teaches the electrode according to claim 1, wherein a length of a gap between two adjacent collector electrodes ranges from 400 µm to 2000 µm (para. 67 teaches 100-2000 micrometers).
Regarding claim 22, LANDA teaches the electrode according to claim 1, wherein the bus electrode and the collector electrode are formed on a solar cell wafer based on one of a sputtering, evaporation, or deposition process after a mask is adhered to the solar cell wafer (product-by-process limitation that does not further define or limit the claimed product invention; examiner asserts identical structure is produced by prior art as what would be produced by the recited formation methods).
Regarding claim 23, LANDA teaches a solar cell, comprising: a solar cell wafer; the electrode according to claim 1, wherein the electrode comprises: a collector electrode on the solar cell wafer; and a bus electrode on the solar cell wafer, wherein the collector electrode and the bus electrode intersect with each other, wherein a width of the collector electrode ranges from 5 µm to 30 µm, and wherein a resistivity of each of the collector electrode and the bus electrode is less than or equal to 10⁻⁶ Ω·cm (see abstract and rejection of claim 1, no new features are recited other than a solar cell wafer, see, e.g., para. 39 and other paras. throughout reference).
Regarding claim 24, LANDA teaches the solar cell according to claim 23, wherein the width of the collector electrode ranges from 10 µm to 20 µm, and wherein a width of the bus electrode ranges from 30 µm to 400 µm (see rej of claim 2, all limitations taught by LANDA).
Regarding claim 25, LANDA teaches the solar cell according to claim 23, wherein the collector electrode and the bus electrode are formed on a solar cell wafer, wherein a ratio of a thickness of the collector electrode to the width of the collector electrode ranges from 0.2 to 2, wherein the thickness of the collector electrode is measured along a direction perpendicular to the solar cell wafer (see rej of claim 4, all limitations taught by LANDA).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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