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 § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 6-7, recite the removing the oxide layer, the doped amorphous silicon film layer, and the silicon oxide layer wraparound deposited on the second surface of the second surface of the P-type silicon wafer. First, the term “wraparound” is indefinite since it is not clear as the wraparound being “silicon oxide mask layer wraparound” or whether the wraparound refers to all three layers, or another structure that has not been defined. Second, the claim doesn’t define limitations pertaining any of these layers being deposited on the second surface of the silicon wafer. Therefore, the metes and bounds of this limitation has been held to be indefinite. Claims 2-20 are dependent upon claim 1 and are rejected as well.
For examination purposes, any limitation that teaches the etching of any of these layers on an opposite side of the deposition will meet the limitations of these claims.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-10, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al, CN 113,972,302A in view of Shao et al, CN 113345970A
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a method for manufacturing a solar cell, comprising the following steps:
providing a silicon wafer 110, wherein the silicon wafer comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (step S1, page 6 of translation);
sequentially depositing an oxide layer 131, a doped amorphous silicon film layer 133, and a silicon oxide mask layer 134 on the first surface of the silicon wafer (step S2, page 6 of translation); and
removing the oxide layer, the doped amorphous silicon film layer, and the silicon oxide mask layer wraparound deposited on the second surface of the silicon wafer (as step S3, page 6 of translation. Note: since Wu teaches removing silicon oxide layer and polycrystalline silicon layer material off the front surface of the silicon sheet, which is the second surface of the silicon wafer. Since Wu teaches that silicon material may be etched off, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that any unwanted silicon-type material on this surface may be etched off as well, thereby meeting the limitation of this claim).
Wu fails to teach the silicon wafer is P-type.
However, Shao teaches that silicon wafer may be made of a p-type material as well (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shao with that of Wu because p-type silicon wafers are also generally-known and conventionally-used to make solar cells.
Regarding claim 6, Wu teaches depositing the oxide layer on the first surface of the P-type silicon wafer further comprises: depositing the oxide layer on the first surface of the P-type silicon wafer by a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition method (page 6 of translation), a thermal oxidation method or a chain oxidation method.
Regarding claim 7, Wu teaches depositing the doped amorphous silicon film layer and the silicon oxide mask layer on the first surface of the P- type silicon wafer further comprises: depositing the doped amorphous silicon film layer and the silicon oxide mask layer on the first surface of the P-type silicon wafer by a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition method (page 6 of translation).
Regarding claim 8, Wu teaches the manufacturing method meets at least one of (1) to (4) hereinafter,(1) the oxide is a silicon oxide layer, Background (2) a thickness of the oxide layer is in a range of 0.5 nm to 2.5 nm (page 7 of translation); (3) a thickness of the doped amorphous silicon film layer is in a range of 30 nm to 300 nm (page 7 of translation); and (4) a thickness of the silicon oxide mask layer is in a range of 10 nm to 100nm (abstract).
Regarding claims 9-10, Wu teaches after the step of depositing the silicon oxide mask layer, and before the step of removing the oxide layer, the doped amorphous silicon film layer and the silicon oxide mask layer wraparound deposited on the second surface of the P-type silicon wafer, the manufacturing method further comprises a step of subjecting the P-type silicon wafer to an annealing process, so as to transform the doped amorphous silicon film layer to a doped polycrystalline silicon film layer and make the silicon oxide mask layer densified, wherein a temperature of the annealing process is in a range of 800 °C to 950 °C, and a time of the annealing process is in a range of 30 min to 50 min (annealing treatment, see page 3 of translation).
Regarding claim 20, Wu in view of Shao teaches a solar cell manufactured by the method of claim 1.
Claim(s) 2, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Shao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al, CN 111,180,544.
Regarding claim 2, while Wu teaches the step of removing the oxide layer, the doped amorphous silicon film layer, and the silicon oxide mask layer wraparound deposited on the second surface of the P-type silicon wafer further comprises: removing the oxide layer, the doped amorphous silicon film layer, and the silicon oxide mask layer wraparound deposited on the second surface of the P-type silicon wafer by a solution containing hydrofluoric acid (as step S3, page 6 of translation).
Wu and Shao fail to teach removing using a mixed solution containing hydrofluoric acid and nitric acid.
However, Wang teaches removing using a mixed solution containing hydrofluoric acid and nitric acid (abstract) as a known etchant solution that is used to removed polysilicon and silicon oxide materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wang with that of Wu and Shao because a mixed solution containing hydrofluoric acid and nitric acid is also a known etchant solution that is used to removed polysilicon and silicon oxide materials.
Regarding claim 4, Wu, Shao, and Wang fail to teach in the mixed solution containing the hydrofluoric acid and the nitric acid, a volume percentage of the hydrofluoric acid is in a range of 10% to 30%, and a volume percentage of the nitric acid is in a range of 50% to 80%.
However, it has been held that the composition of the mixed etching solution will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such feature is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation". In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicants have not established the criticality of the mixed etching solution claimed and the Prior Art shows hydrofluoric acid at 9% and nitric acid is at 45% (see claim 2), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a suitable mixed etching solution in the method of Wu, Shao, and Wang.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed mixed etching solution where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 5, while Wang teaches the mixed solution containing the hydrofluoric acid and the nitric acid further comprises a sulfuric acid (abstract), Wu, Shao, and Wang fail to teach a volume percentage of the sulfuric acid is in a range of 10% to 25%.
However, it has been held that the composition of the mixed etching solution will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such feature is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation". In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicants have not established the criticality of the mixed etching solution claimed and the Prior Art shows hydrofluoric acid at 9%, nitric acid is at 45%, and sulfuric acid is 45% (see claim 2), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a suitable mixed etching solution in the method of Wu, Shao, and Wang.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed mixed etching solution where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Shao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harrington, US Patent Application Publication 2013/0247967.
Regarding claim 3, Wu and Shao fail to teach the step of removing the oxide layer, the doped amorphous silicon film layer, and the silicon oxide mask layer wraparound deposited on the second surface of the P-type silicon wafer further comprises the following steps: coating a protective film on the first surface of the P-type silicon wafer, and etching the second surface of the P-type silicon wafer with the mixed solution containing the hydrofluoric acid and the nitric acid, so as to remove the oxide layer, the doped amorphous silicon film layer, and the silicon oxide mask layer wraparound deposited on the second surface of the P-type silicon wafer.
However, Harrington teaches using an protection layer 208 as a means to protect the other side of the substrate from unwanted etching or interaction (see [0022]). Using the protection layer of Harrington with the invention of Wu and Shao would result in meeting the limitation of “coating a protective film on the first surface of the P-type silicon wafer, and etching the second surface of the P-type silicon wafer with the mixed solution containing the hydrofluoric acid and the nitric acid, so as to remove the oxide layer, the doped amorphous silicon film layer, and the silicon oxide mask layer wraparound deposited on the second surface of the P-type silicon wafer.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Harrington with that of Wu and Shao because protection layers are a generally-known means of protecting the other side of the substrate from unwanted etching or interaction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-4PM.
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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
QVJ
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights