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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 17-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 215815893U, see English machine translation for mapping), as evidenced by Foss et al. (US 2012/0012170).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang discloses a solar cell in Figure 2, comprising:
a silicon substrate (1) ([50] and [56]);
a tunnel oxide layer (2) disposed on a surface of the silicon substrate ([85], the first silicon oxide layer 2 has a thickness of 0.5 nm reads on a “tunnel oxide”);
a first doped polysilicon layer (5) disposed on a surface of the tunnel oxide layer (2), a surface of the first doped polysilicon layer (5) comprising a first region and a second region (Figure 2 and [40], [46] and [56]);
a laser-absorption layer (4) disposed on the first region of the surface of the first doped polysilicon layer (5) (Figure 2, [76] and [79], layer 4 is a silicon oxide layer that is capable of absorbing laser light as evidenced by Foss, [43] and reads on a “laser absorption layer”); and
a second doped polysilicon layer (3) disposed on a surface of the laser-absorption layer (4) ([10], [46] and [56]);
a passivation and anti-reflection layer (6) disposed on the first doped polysilicon layer (5) and the second doped polysilicon layer (3) (Figure 2 and [63] and [67]);
wherein the first doped polysilicon layer (5) and the second doped polysilicon layer (3) have the same doping type ([40], [46] and [79]); and
the first doped polysilicon layer (5) and the second doped polysilicon layer (3) are disposed between the passivation and anti-reflection layer (6) and the tunnel oxide layer (2) (Figure 2); and
along a thickness direction of the silicon substrate, a distance from the tunnel oxide layer (2) to the passivation and anti-reflection layer (6) in the first region (metal contact region) is greater than the distance from the tunnel oxide layer (2) to the passivation and anti-reflection layer (6) in the second region (non-metal contact region) (Figure 2),
wherein in the first region (metal contact region), a thickness of the second doped polysilicon layer (3) is greater than a thickness of the first doped polysilicon layer (5) ([76]).
It is noted that the term “disposed on” does not require direct contact or a particular order of the layers.
Further, the limitation “laser absorption layer” is directed to the method of making the solar cell. Limitations directed to the method of making the claimed device are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114. Therefore, since the solar cell disclosed by Zhang is the same as the solar cell required by claim 17, the claim is unpatentable even though the solar cell of Zhang may have been made by a different process. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. The limitation “wherein the laser-absorption layer is adapted to be vaporized by absorbing a laser having a predetermined wavelength” is directed to the method of making the solar cell. Limitations directed to the method of making the claimed device are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114. Therefore, since the solar cell disclosed by Zhang is the same as the solar cell required by claim 18, the claim is unpatentable even though the solar cell of Zhang may have been made by a different process. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhang additionally discloses that the passivation and anti-reflection layer (6) directly contacts the second doped polysilicon layer (3) (Figure 2).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 215815893U, see English machine translation for mapping), as evidenced by Foss et al. (US 2012/0012170) in view of Borden et al. (US 2011/0162706).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a solar cell in Figure 2, comprising:
a silicon substrate (1) ([50] and [56]);
a tunnel oxide layer (2) disposed on a surface of the silicon substrate ([85], the first silicon oxide layer 2 has a thickness of 0.5 nm and reads on a “tunnel oxide layer”);
a first doped polysilicon layer (3) disposed on a surface of the tunnel oxide layer (2), a surface of the first doped polysilicon layer (3) comprising a first region and a second region (Figure 2 and [40], [46] and [56]);
a laser-absorption layer (4) disposed on the first region of the surface of the first doped polysilicon layer (3) (Figure 2, [76] and [79], layer 4 is a silicon oxide layer that is capable of absorbing laser light as evidenced by Foss, [43] and reads on a “laser absorption layer”); and
a second doped polysilicon layer (5) disposed on a surface of the laser-absorption layer (4) ([10], [46] and [56]); and
wherein the laser-absorption layer (4) is a second tunnel oxide layer ([76], [79] and [85], layer 4 is a 0.5nm thick or 2.5 nm thick silicon oxide layer which reads on a “tunnel oxide layer”).
Further, the limitation “laser absorption layer” is directed to the method of making the solar cell. Limitations directed to the method of making the claimed device are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114. Therefore, since the solar cell disclosed by Zhang is the same as the solar cell required by claim 1, the claim is unpatentable even though the solar cell of Zhang may have been made by a different process. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Zhang discloses that the second tunnel oxide layer (4) is a silicon oxide layer ([76], [79] and [85], layer 4 is a 0.5nm thick or 2.5 nm thick silicon oxide layer which reads on a “tunnel oxide layer”), but Zhang does not disclose that the second tunnel oxide layer includes a titanium oxide layer or an aluminum oxide layer.
Borden discloses a solar cell in Figure 1 comprising a tunnel oxide layer (104) between a doped polysilicon layer (106) and a silicon substrate (102) ([17]) and discloses that suitable materials for the tunnel oxide layer (104) include silicon oxide and aluminum oxide ([17]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the silicon oxide tunnel oxide layer with an aluminum oxide tunnel oxide layer, as taught by Borden, because it would amount to nothing more than a simple substitution of one suitable tunnel oxide material for another to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 3, modified Zhang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhang additionally discloses that a thickness of the laser-absorption layer (4) is in a range from 1 nm to 5 nm (layer 4 has a thickness of 2.5 nm, [76]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Zhang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhang additionally discloses a thickness of the second doped polysilicon layer (5) is greater than a thickness of the first doped polysilicon layer (3) (layer 3 has a thickness of 75 nm and layer 5 has a thickness of 150 nm, [76]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Zhang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhang additionally discloses that the first doped polysilicon layer (3) comprises a phosphorus-doped polysilicon film or a boron-doped polysilicon film ([40] and [46]); and/or a thickness of the first doped polysilicon layer is in a range from 5 nm to 100 nm (layer 3 has a thickness of 75 nm, [76]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhang additionally discloses that the second doped polysilicon layer (5) comprises a phosphorus-doped polysilicon film or a boron-doped polysilicon film ([40] and [46]); and/or a thickness of the second doped polysilicon layer (5) is in a range from 70 nm to 200 nm (layer 5 has a thickness of 150 nm, [76]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Zhang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhang additionally discloses a passivation and anti-reflection layer (6) and a metal electrode (7) (Figure 2, [95] and [60]-[61], [63]), wherein the passivation and anti- reflection layer (6) is disposed on the second region of the surface of the first doped polysilicon layer (3) and a surface of the second doped polysilicon layer (5), and the metal electrode (7) is fixedly connected to the second doped polysilicon layer (5) (Figure 2 and [60]-[63]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Zhang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhang additionally discloses that the passivation and anti-reflection layer (6) comprises a silicon nitride layer or a stack of an aluminum oxide layer and a silicon nitride layer ([95]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Zhang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhang additionally discloses that the metal electrode (7) penetrates through the passivation and anti-reflection layer (6) and is in contact with the second doped polysilicon layer (5) (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, modified Zhang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhang additionally discloses that the metal electrode (7) is separated from the laser-absorption layer (4) by the second doped polysilicon layer (5) (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, modified Zhang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhang additionally discloses that the first doped polysilicon layer (3) and the second doped polysilicon layer (5) have the same doping type and/or are made of the same material ([40] and [46]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Zhang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhang additionally discloses a photovoltaic module comprising the solar cell as set forth above ([1], the structure of Zhang reads on both a solar cell and a photovoltaic module since no specific structure has been required for the photovoltaic module).
Regarding claim 16, modified Zhang discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. The limitation “wherein the laser-absorption layer is adapted to be vaporized by absorbing a laser having a predetermined wavelength” is directed to the method of making the solar cell. Limitations directed to the method of making the claimed device are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114. Therefore, since the solar cell disclosed by modified Zhang is the same as the solar cell required by claim 16, the claim is unpatentable even though the solar cell of Zhang may have been made by a different process. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 215815893U, see English machine translation for mapping), as evidenced by Foss et al. (US 2012/0012170).
Regarding claim 22, Zhang discloses a solar cell in Figure 2, comprising:
a silicon substrate (1) ([50] and [56]);
a tunnel oxide layer (2) disposed on a surface of the silicon substrate ([85], the first silicon oxide layer 2 has a thickness of 0.5 nm reads on a “tunnel oxide”);
a first doped polysilicon layer (3) disposed on a surface of the tunnel oxide layer (2), a surface of the first doped polysilicon layer (3) comprising a first region and a second region (Figure 2 and [40], [46] and [56]);
a laser-absorption layer (4) disposed on the first region of the surface of the first doped polysilicon layer (3) (Figure 2, [76] and [79], layer 4 is a silicon oxide layer that is capable of absorbing laser light as evidenced by Foss, [43] and reads on a “laser absorption layer”); and
a second doped polysilicon layer (5) disposed on a surface of the laser-absorption layer (4) ([10], [46] and [56]);
a passivation and anti-reflection layer (6) disposed on the first doped polysilicon layer (3) and the second doped polysilicon layer (5) (Figure 2 and [63] and [67]);
wherein the tunnel oxide layer (2), the first doped polysilicon layer (3), the laser-absorption layer (4), and the second doped polysilicon layer (5) are sequentially stacked on the surface of the silicon substrate (1) (Figure 2);
wherein the first doped polysilicon layer (3) and the second doped polysilicon layer (5) have the same doping type ([40], [46] and [79]); and
the first doped polysilicon layer (3) and the second doped polysilicon layer (5) are disposed between the passivation and anti-reflection layer (6) and the tunnel oxide layer (2) (Figure 2); and
along a thickness direction of the silicon substrate, a distance from the tunnel oxide layer (2) to the passivation and anti-reflection layer (6) in the first region (metal contact region) is greater than the distance from the tunnel oxide layer (2) to the passivation and anti-reflection layer (6) in the second region (non-metal contact region) (Figure 2),
wherein in the first region (metal contact region), a thickness of the second doped polysilicon layer (5) is 1-300nm ([66]) and the thickness of the first doped polysilicon layer is 10-450nm ([66]).
Zhang does not disclose that the in the first region, a thickness of the second doped polysilicon layer (5) is greater than a thickness of the first doped polysilicon layer (3). However, thicknesses in the ranges for the first and second doped polysilicon layer can be chosen that satisfy the limitations of the claim and choosing values within the disclosed ranges would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It is noted that the term “disposed on” does not require direct contact or a particular order of the layers.
Further, the limitation “laser absorption layer” is directed to the method of making the solar cell. Limitations directed to the method of making the claimed device are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114. Therefore, since the solar cell disclosed by Zhang is the same as the solar cell required by claim 17, the claim is unpatentable even though the solar cell of Zhang may have been made by a different process. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the layer 2 and layer 4 do not read on a “tunnel oxide layer”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Layers 2 and 4 are 0.5nm thick silicon oxide layers as discussed in [85] of Zhang. These layers are made of the same materials and the same thickness as those claimed and disclosed in the instant specification as “tunnel oxide” layers (instant specification, [54]-[55]). Since the layers 2 and 4 of Zhang are made of the same material (silicon oxide) having the same thickness (0.5nm) as the tunnel oxide layers claimed and disclosed in the instant specification, they will necessarily display the claimed properties of being a “tunnel oxide layer”.
As discussed in MPEP 2112.01, “When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Additionally, if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”.
Further, the Borden reference further supports the examiner’s interpretation. Borden discloses in [22], “In general, the tunnel layers are formed so that the electrical current passing through the tunnel layer, between the substrate and polysilicon layer ( e.g., emitter), is completed primarily by a "tunneling" process and not the conductivity of the tunnel layer material. Since the electrical current has to pass through the tunnel layer, the tunnel layer thickness has to be small ( e.g., silicon dioxide having a thickness of 8-12 A) to reduce the junction’s electrical resistance” and Borden discloses that suitable materials for a tunnel oxide layer include silicon oxide and aluminum oxide ([17]).
PNG
media_image2.png
483
796
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that the Zhang refence does not anticipate claim 17.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are broad and “regions” of layer 5 can be defined which satisfy all of the claim limitations as shown in Annotated Figure 2 above. The term “region” does not require any particular portion of the layer and any section or portion of the layer can be chosen which satisfies the claim language. Further, a “region” does not need to be continuous unless such a limitation has been claimed. Layer 5 is not limited to a single “region” and has innumerable regions since the claims do not contain any limitations which preclude such an interpretation. Examiner additionally notes that the terms “metal contact region” and “non-metal contact region” are not present in rejected claim 17.
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