Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/754,963

METHOD FOR PREPARING SOLAR CELL

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jun 26, 2024
Examiner
BUCK, LINDSEY A
Art Unit
1728
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Trina Solar (Suqian) Photoelectric Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
49%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 49% of resolved cases
49%
Career Allow Rate
332 granted / 679 resolved
-16.1% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+33.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
719
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
42.2%
+2.2% vs TC avg
§102
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
§112
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 679 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 1-13 and 15 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 contains the limitation “depositing a tunnel passivation structure on a back surface of the N-type silicon substrate, and then depositing a mask layer on the tunnel passivation structure” and “performing boron diffusion treatment on the cleaned front surface of the N-type silicon substrate and annealing treatment on the pre-formed tunnel passivation structure in the same environment, so that a first emitter layer is formed on the front surface of the N-type silicon substrate and the tunnel passivation structure is crystallized”. The limitation “the pre-formed tunnel passivation structure” does not have antecedent basis in the claim. Is the previously set forth “a tunnel passivation structure” the same or different from the subsequently recited “pre-formed tunnel passivation structure”? How are they related to each other? Claim 1 further contains the limitation “then cleaning the N-type silicon substrate surface in order to clean the mask layer on the tunnel passivation structure on the back surface”. It is unclear if “the tunnel passivation structure” refers to the previously set forth “tunnel passivation structure” or the “pre-formed tunnel passivation structure”. Clarification and appropriate correction is required between the “tunnel passivation structure” and the “pre-formed tunnel passivation structure”. Claims 2-13 and 15 are additionally rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim and including all of the limitations thereof. Claim 2 contains the limitation “wherein the pre-formed tunnel passivation structure is subjected to an annealing treatment, so that crystallization of the materials in the passivation contact material layer is completed”. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, includes the limitation “performing boron diffusion treatment on the cleaned front surface of the N-type silicon substrate and annealing treatment on the pre-formed tunnel passivation structure in the same environment, so that a first emitter layer is formed on the front surface of the N-type silicon substrate and the tunnel passivation structure is crystallized”. The term “an annealing treatment” in claim 2 does not have clear antecedent basis. It is unclear if the “annealing treatment” recited in claim 2 is the same or different from the annealing treatment set forth in claim 1. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. Claims 3 and 4 are additionally rejected as being dependent on claim 2 and including all of the claim limitations thereof. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-13 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Conclusion 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). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY A BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm. 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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. /LINDSEY A BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 26, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Jan 20, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604663
DOUBLE-CAPPED MICROMOLECULE ELECTRON DONOR MATERIAL AND PREPARATION AND APPLICATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12575219
SOLAR CELL AND PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563858
THREE DIMENSIONAL CONCAVE HEMISPHERE SOLAR CELLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557550
THERMOELECTRIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12550614
Device for converting thermal energy into electric power
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
49%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+33.5%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 679 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month