DETAILED ACTION
This is the second 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 07/08/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 14-20, and 23-28 are currently pending.
Claims 6, 13, 21, and 22 are canceled.
Claims 1-5, 14-17, 19, 20, and 23-25 are amended.
Claims 18 and 26-28 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-5, 14-17, 19, 20, and 23-25 are examined below.
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 07/08/2026 have been carefully considered but they are moot in light of the Office’s new ground of rejection.
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) in view of LEVI (WO 2014/096929 A2) and LEE (US 2011/0240119 A1).
Regarding claim 1, LANDA teaches an electrode of a solar cell, comprising a plurality of collector electrodes (510) and at least one 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.
LANDA does not disclose expressly that a gap exists between two adjacent collector electrodes along a same track extending in a length direction of the two adjacent electrodes, and a length of the gap ranges from 400-2000 micrometers.
LEVI teaches an electrode of a solar cell having a gap that exists between two adjacent collector electrodes along a same track extending in a length direction of the two adjacent electrodes, and a length of the gap ranges from 400-2000 micrometers (Fig. 3 and pg. 8, ll. 5-30). LEVI teaches that having discontinuities may be useful, and the gap may be between about 50-3000 micrometers.
PNG
media_image3.png
776
671
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify LANDA and include a discontinuity gap with a gap dimension from 400-2000 micrometers because LANDA teaches that said arrangement is useful in a solar cell finger electrode. 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 400-2000 micrometers overlaps with the 50-3000 micrometers range taught by LANDA, and is thus prima facie obvious.
LANDA does not disclose expressly that the at least one bus electrode and the plurality of collector electrodes 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. The examiner determines that this limitation recites a product-by-process.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." MPEP 2113. Here, the examiner determines that the recited process of production does not influence the final produced product.
Additionally, LEE teaches an electrode for a solar cell, where the bus bar and finger/collector electrodes are designed to have resistivity of 3x10-6 Ω-cm or less, because reduction of the specific resistivity is desirable and can improve the solar cell efficiency (paras. 23 and 34).
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify LANDA and design the bus bar and collector electrodes to have resistivity of 3x10-6 Ω-cm or less, because reduction of the specific resistivity is desirable and can improve the solar cell efficiency as taught by LEE.
Regarding claim 2, modified 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_image4.png
472
560
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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 width error of the second section is less than or equal to 10% (paras. 195-199 describes that width error/”variability” should be less than 10%, such as less than 5%)..
Regarding claim 15, modified 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, modified LANDA teaches the electrode according to claim 5, wherein the width error of the entire respective collector electrode is less than or equal to 10% (paras. 195-199 describes that width error/”variability” should be less than 10%, such as less than 5%)..
Regarding claim 17, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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; an electrode, 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).
LANDA does not disclose expressly that a gap exists between two adjacent collector electrodes along a same track extending in a length direction of the two adjacent electrodes, and a length of the gap ranges from 400-2000 micrometers.
LEVI teaches an electrode of a solar cell having a gap that exists between two adjacent collector electrodes along a same track extending in a length direction of the two adjacent electrodes, and a length of the gap ranges from 400-2000 micrometers (Fig. 3 and pg. 8, ll. 5-30). LEVI teaches that having discontinuities may be useful, and the gap may be between about 50-3000 micrometers.
PNG
media_image3.png
776
671
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify LANDA and include a discontinuity gap with a gap dimension from 400-2000 micrometers because LANDA teaches that said arrangement is useful in a solar cell finger electrode. 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 400-2000 micrometers overlaps with the 50-3000 micrometers range taught by LANDA, and is thus prima facie obvious.
LANDA does not disclose expressly that the at least one bus electrode and the plurality of collector electrodes 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. The examiner determines that this limitation recites a product-by-process.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." MPEP 2113. Here, the examiner determines that the recited process of production does not influence the final produced product.
Additionally, LEE teaches an electrode for a solar cell, where the bus bar and finger/collector electrodes are designed to have resistivity of 3x10-6 Ω-cm or less, because reduction of the specific resistivity is desirable and can improve the solar cell efficiency (paras. 23 and 34).
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify LANDA and design the bus bar and collector electrodes to have resistivity of 3x10-6 Ω-cm or less, because reduction of the specific resistivity is desirable and can improve the solar cell efficiency as taught by LEE.
Regarding claim 24, modified 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, modified 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.
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