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 .
Election by Original Presentation
Newly submitted claim 20 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the invention originally claimed recites the groove extends to reach the semiconducting substrate (claim 8), while newly submitted claim 20 recites the groove does not extend into the first tunneling layer; or the groove extends in the first tunneling layer but does not penetrate through the first tunneling layer.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 20 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niira et al. (US 2011/0000532).
Regarding claim 22, Niira discloses a solar cell (Fig. 1) comprising: a semiconducting substrate comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other (1 in Fig. 1), the semiconducting substrate comprising a first region and a second region spaced apart from each other in a first direction, the first direction being perpendicular to a thickness direction of the semiconducting substrate (shown in annotated Fig. 1 below); a first emitter in a first conductivity type (first sub-emitter and second sub-emitter depicted in annotated Fig. 1 below; [0038] L4), the first emitter being disposed on the first surface (first and second sub-emitter depicted in annotated Fig. 1 below in relation to bottom surface of 1; it is noted that the limitation “disposed on” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components) and comprising a groove (shown in annotated Fig. 1 below), the groove dividing the first emitter into a first sub-emitter and a second sub-emitter (groove occupied by 11 between first and second sub-emitter depicted in annotated Fig. 1 below), the first sub-emitter being located on the first region (first sub-emitter located on first region as depicted in annotated Fig. 1 below), the second sub-emitter being located on the second region (shown in annotated Fig. 1 below); and a second emitter in a second conductivity type (3 in Fig. 1; [0038] L3), the second emitter being disposed on the first surface and located on the second region (3 on bottom surface of 1; 3 located on the second region as depicted in annotated Fig. 1 below; it is noted that the limitations “disposed on” and “located on” do not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components); a first tunneling layer disposed between the first emitter and the semiconducting substrate (2b in annotated Fig. 1 below); and a second tunneling layer disposed between the second emitter and the semiconducting substrate (2a in annotated Fig. 1 below); wherein a minimum distance between the second emitter and the second surface is less than a minimum distance between the first emitter and the second surface (distance between 3 and top surface of 1 in relation to distance between first and second sub-emitters, depicted in annotated Fig. 1 below, in relation to top surface of 1); wherein the groove penetrates through the first tunneling layer, dividing the first tunneling layer into a first part located on the first region and a second part located on the second region (shown in annotated Fig. 1 below); and wherein the second part of the first tunneling layer is in direct contact with the second emitter (second part, as annotated in Fig. 1 below, in relation to 3).
It is noted that if Niira does not explicitly disclose wherein a minimum distance between the second emitter and the second surface is less than a minimum distance between the first emitter and the second surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the second emitter of Niira such that a minimum distance between the second emitter and the second surface is less than a minimum distance between the first emitter and the second surface because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
[AltContent: textbox (second sub-region)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second region)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first part)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second sub-emitter)][AltContent: textbox (first sub-emitter)][AltContent: textbox (first region)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
440
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (first sub-region)][AltContent: textbox (second part)]
[AltContent: textbox (sidewall of second part)][AltContent: textbox (sidewall of second sub-emitter)]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-14, 17-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 216488083U – see equivalent US 2024/0347660).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a solar cell (abstract) comprising: a semiconducting substrate comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other (10 in Figures 1-7; [0055],[0059]), the semiconducting substrate comprising a first region and a second region spaced apart from each other in a first direction, the first direction being perpendicular to a thickness direction of the semiconducting substrate (shown in annotated Fig. 7 below); a first emitter in a first conductivity type, the first emitter being disposed on the first surface (11 in Fig. 7; [0087]) and comprising a groove (1030 in Fig. 7; [0057]), the groove dividing the first emitter into a first sub-emitter and a second sub-emitter (1030 in relation to 11 in Fig. 7), the first sub-emitter being located on the first region, the second sub-emitter being located on the second region (shown in annotated Fig. 7 below); and a second emitter in a second conductivity type (12 in Fig. 7; [0087]), the second emitter being disposed on the first surface and located on the second region (12 in relation to second region as depicted in annotated Fig. 7 below); wherein a minimum distance between the second emitter and the second surface is less than a minimum distance between the first emitter and the second surface (distance from the bottom of layer 12 to the opposing surface of 10 in Fig. 7 is less than the distance from the bottom of layer 11 to the opposing surface of 10); wherein a p-n junction is formed between the first sub-emitter and the semiconducting substrate ([0062]).
While Li does depict a size of the first sub-emitter along the first direction (first sub-emitter in annotated Fig. 7 below), and a size of the second emitter along the first direction (12 in Fig. 7), and further discloses, in the depiction of annotated Fig. 7 below, the size of the first sub-emitter is approximately equal to a size of the second emitter along the first direction; Li does not explicitly disclose a size of the first sub-emitter along the first direction is greater than or equal to a size of the second emitter along the first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first sub-emitter of Li such that the size of the first sub-emitter along the first direction is greater than or equal to a size of the second emitter along the first direction because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
While Li does depict a size of the first sub-emitter along the first direction (first sub-emitter in annotated Fig. 7 below), and a size of the second emitter along the first direction (12 in Fig. 7), and further discloses, in the depiction of annotated Fig. 7 below, the size of the first sub-emitter is approximately equal to a size of the second emitter along the first direction; Li does not explicitly disclose an area of an orthogonal projection of the first sub-emitter on the semiconducting substrate is greater than or equal to an area of an orthogonal projection of the second emitter on the semiconducting substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first sub-emitter of Li such that an area of an orthogonal projection of the first sub-emitter on the semiconducting substrate is greater than or equal to an area of an orthogonal projection of the second emitter on the semiconducting substrate because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
[AltContent: textbox (second part)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (first sub-region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second sub-emitter)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first sub-emitter)][AltContent: textbox (second region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
263
437
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses a first tunneling layer disposed between the first emitter and the semiconducting substrate (14 in Fig. 7; [0087]); and a second tunneling layer disposed between the second emitter and the semiconducting substrate (15 in Fig. 7; [0087]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses the groove penetrates through the first tunneling layer (1030 in relation to 14 in Fig. 7), dividing the first tunneling layer into a first part located on the first region and a second part located on the second region (14 in relation to 1030 and the first and second regions depicted in annotated Fig. 7 above).
Regarding claim 4, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses the second region comprises a first sub-region (shown in annotated Fig. 7 above) and a second sub-region (1032 in Fig. 7) arranged adjacent to each other along the first direction (1032 and first sub-region as depicted in annotated Fig. 7 above), and the second sub-region is located at a side of the first sub-region adjacent to the first region (1032 is at a side of the first sub-region adjacent to the first region as depicted in annotated Fig. 7 above); the second part covers the first surface of the semiconducting substrate in the second sub-region (shown in annotated Fig. 7 above); and the second tunneling layer covers the first surface of the semiconducting substrate in the first sub-region (15 (portion which is to the left of 1030) in relation to first region as depicted in annotated Fig. 7 above) and a sidewall of the second sub-emitter that is away from the groove (15 covering sidewall of second sub-emitter away from 1030 as depicted in annotated Fig. 7 above).
Regarding claim 5, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses the second tunneling layer further covers a sidewall of the second part away from the groove (15 covering sidewall of second part away from 1030 as depicted in annotated Fig. 7 above) and a surface of the second sub-emitter away from the semiconducting substrate (15 covering the upper surface of the second sub-emitter as depicted in annotated Fig. 7 above).
Regarding claim 6, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses the second emitter covers a sidewall of the second part away from the groove (12 covering a sidewall of the second part away from 1030 in annotated Fig. 7 above) and a surface of the second sub-emitter away from the semiconducting substrate (12 covering the upper surface of the second sub-emitter as depicted in annotated Fig. 7 above).
Regarding claim 7, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses a ratio of the width of 1032 (width of 1032 corresponds to the width of second part along the first direction in annotated Fig. 7 above) to a width of 102 (width of 102 corresponds to the width of 15 on the first sub-region in annotated Fig. 7 above) is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 0.1 ([0071]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above. Li further discloses the groove extends to reach the semiconducting substrate (1030 in relation to 10 in Fig. 7) .
Regarding claim 9, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses a distance between the second tunneling layer located on the first sub-region and the second surface is less than a distance between a bottom surface of the groove formed by the first surface, and the second surface (distance between 15 located on the first sub-region (as depicted in annotated Fig. 7 above) and the opposing surface of 10 is less than a distance between the bottom surface of 1030 and the second surface of 10 in annotated Fig. 7 above).
Regarding claim 10, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses a first dielectric layer disposed on a side of the first emitter away from the semiconducting substrate and a side of the second emitter away from the semiconducting substrate, wherein the first dielectric layer covers the groove (13 in relation to 11, 12, and 1030 in Fig. 7; [0076]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses a first passivation layer, wherein the first passivation layer covers the groove ([0106] discloses an anti-reflection layer).
It is noted that if the disclosure of paragraph [0106] of Li does not disclose the limitation requiring a first passivation layer covering the groove, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an anti-reflection layer, as disclosed in paragraph [0106] of Li, on the first passivation layer 13, because as taught by Li, the back contact solar cell may absorb light energy at both sides, further use of light energy is achieved, and the power generation efficiency of the back contact solar cell is improved ([0104]). It is further noted that the anti-reflection layer disclosed ([0107] satisfies the limitation requiring a first passivation layer covering the groove.
Regarding claim 12, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses the first passivation layer further covers a surface of the first sub-emitter away from the semiconducting substrate and a surface of the second emitter away from the semiconducting substrate (the disclosed anti-reflection layer on layer 13 in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses the semiconductor substrate comprises a first region and a second region, both extending from the first surface towards the second surface ([0055] discloses layer 11 is formed on the first doped region 101 and the overlapping region 103; [0055] discloses layer 12 is formed on the first doped layer 11 on the overlapping region 103 and the second doped region 102), an orthogonal projection of the first emitter on the semiconducting substrate covers at least a part of the first region, and an orthogonal projection of the second emitter on the semiconducting substrate covers at least a part of the second region ([0055] discloses layer 11 is formed on the first doped region 101 and the overlapping region 103; [0055] discloses layer 12 is formed on the first doped layer 11 on the overlapping region 103 and the second doped region 102).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “diffusion,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is made, and it is noted that said limitations 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).
Regarding claim 14, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses the first region comprises a first sub-region and a second sub-region spaced from each other in the first direction ([0055]; first doped region 101 necessarily is comprised of sub-regions; it is noted that any portion of the disclosed first doped region 101 is a sub-region; the claim does not specify a boundary or material composition specific to the claimed sub-region(s), therefore, any portion of the disclosed first doped region 101 is considered a sub-region), an orthogonal projection of the first sub-emitter on the semiconductor substrate coincides with the first sub-region (orthogonal projection of first sub-emitter as depicted in annotated Fig. 7 above necessarily coincides with a portion of the first doped region 101 satisfying the limitation requiring a sub-region), and an orthogonal projection of the second sub-emitter on the semiconducting substrate coincides with the second sub-region (orthogonal projection of the second sub-emitter as depicted in annotated Fig. 7 above necessarily coincides with a portion of the second doping region 102 satisfying the limitation requiring a sub-region).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “diffusion,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is made, and it is noted that said limitations 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).
Regarding claim 17, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses a bottom surface of the groove has a micro-textured structure ([0104] discloses the bottom of 1030 may have a textured structure).
It is further noted that with regard to the size of the texturing structures, the bottom surface of the groove of Li necessarily contains a structure which satisfies the limitation “micro-textured” because imperfections inherent in surfaces falls within the scope or breadth of the limitation “micro-textured.”
Regarding claim 18, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses a photovoltaic module comprising the solar cell (the disclosed solar cell satisfies the limitation requiring a photovoltaic module).
Regarding claim 19, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Li further discloses a photovoltaic system comprising the photovoltaic module (the disclosed solar cell satisfies the limitations requiring a photovoltaic module and a photovoltaic system).
Regarding claim 21, Li discloses a solar cell (abstract) comprising: a semiconducting substrate comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other (10 in Figures 1-7; [0055],[0059]), the semiconducting substrate comprising a first region and a second region spaced apart from each other in a first direction, the first direction being perpendicular to a thickness direction of the semiconducting substrate (shown in annotated Fig. 7 above); a first emitter in a first conductivity type, the first emitter being disposed on the first surface (11 in Fig. 7; [0087]) and comprising a groove (1030 in Fig. 7; [0057]), the groove dividing the first emitter into a first sub-emitter and a second sub-emitter (1030 in relation to 11 in Fig. 7), the first sub-emitter being located on the first region, the second sub-emitter being located on the second region (shown in annotated Fig. 7 above); and a second emitter in a second conductivity type (12 in Fig. 7; [0087]), the second emitter being disposed on the first surface and located on the second region (12 in relation to second region as depicted in annotated Fig. 7 above); wherein a minimum distance between the second emitter and the second surface is less than a minimum distance between the first emitter and the second surface (distance from the bottom of layer 12 to the opposing surface of 10 in Fig. 7 is less than the distance from the bottom of layer 11 to the opposing surface of 10).
While Li does depict a first and second sidewalls of the groove adjacent to the first and second regions, respectively (sidewalls of 1030 in annotated Fig. 7 above); Li does not explicitly disclose a first height of a first sidewall of the groove adjacent to the first region is greater than a second height of a second sidewall of the groove adjacent to the second region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first height of the first sidewall of the groove adjacent to the first region in the solar cell of Li such that it is greater than the second height of the second sidewall of the groove adjacent to the second region in the solar cell of Li because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Li by increasing the lateral dimension and/or the area of the orthogonal projection of the thicker section of the substrate 10 (including the first doped region 101 and the entire overlapping region 103) to be larger than the lateral dimension and/or the area of the orthogonal projection of the thinner section of the substrate 10 (i.e., the second doped layer 12 on the second doped region 102), as would be required to reach Applicant’s amended independent claim 1.
In response to Applicant’s argument, evidence of non-obviousness in the form of unexpected results has not been provided. Applicant has not shown that a device having the claimed dimensions would perform differently than the prior art device. Specifically, evidence which shows that modifying Li such that a size of the first sub-emitter along the first direction is greater than or equal to a size of the second emitter along the first direction, and/or an area of an orthogonal projection of the first sub-emitter on the semiconducting substrate is greater than or equal to an area of an orthogonal projection of the second emitter on the semiconducting substrate produces unexpected results has not been provided. Unexpected results must be established by factual evidence; mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification do not suffice. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1977) (quoting In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
Applicant argues that the second doped layer 12 is positioned immediately adjacent the portion of the first doped layer 11 on the first overlapping region 1031 and because the second doped layer 12 covers the first overlapping region 1031, the second doped layer 12 encroaches upon the lateral dimension of the first doped layer 11 on the first doped region 101 and the first overlapping region 1031 (“the first sub-emitter”) and restricts the lateral dimension of the first doped layer 11 on the first doped region 101. Applicant further argues that the necessary modification of Li would also necessitate that the second doped layer 12 be reconstructed and/or redesigned in order to allow the first doped layer 11 to have a larger lateral dimension and/or orthogonal projection and in order to maintain the ratios disclosed in paragraphs [0069] and [0072] necessary for the proper operation of the solar cell of Li.
In response to Applicant’s argument, a change in the lateral dimension of 12 in Li (corresponding to a change in the lateral dimension of 102 in Fig. 8 of Li, for example) in order to satisfy the claimed relationship has not been shown to result in a patentable distinction (i.e., a device having the claimed dimensions would perform differently than the prior art device). Absent evidence to the contrary, given the breath of the claimed relationship, a change in the relative dimensions of components in the solar cell of Li (i.e., reducing the lateral dimension of 12) does not result in a patentable distinction. Evidence of unexpected results of a solar cell with dimensions commensurate with the breadth of the limitations claimed has not been provided.
Applicant argues that the necessary modification to Li would run counter to Li’s concern about making “the current transmission path of the first doped layer 11 too long,” which would in turn lead to solar inefficiency.
In response to Applicant’s argument, paragraph [0069] of Li does not disclose, teach or suggest that modifying Li such that the claimed relative dimensions are satisfied would lead to solar inefficiency. Instead, Li, in paragraph [0069], discusses the ratio of the width of the first overlapping region 1031 to the width of the first doped region.
Applicant argues one skilled in the art would not have been motivated to specify (or increase) the size and/or area of the first doped layer 11 on the first doped region 101 and the first overlapping region 1031 (“the first sub-emitter”) for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the solar cell.
In response to Applicant’s argument, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established as set forth in the office action, and the burden is on the Applicant to show that a change to the prior art structure (Li et al.) to achieve the relative size dimensions claimed results in a patentable distinction (i.e., a device having the claimed dimensions would perform differently than the prior art device). Absent evidence to the contrary, a modification to the structure of Li to achieve the claimed relative size dimensions amounts to a mere change in size of a component of an existing structure, which as set forth above, does not result in a patentable distinction between the prior art and the invention.
Unexpected results must be established by factual evidence; mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification do not suffice. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1977) (quoting In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
It is noted that with regard to Applicant’s arguments directed to newly submitted claim 21, evidence has not been provided which shows that a change in the relative heights of the sidewalls of Li results in a patentable distinction between the invention of claim 21 and the prior art structure of Li. As set forth in the office action, absent evidence to the contrary, a modification to the heights of the sidewalls of Li involves a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 22 have been considered but are not directed to the rejection of claim 22 as set forth above.
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 TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726