DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments to the Claims and Remarks filed December 9, 2025.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed December 9, 2025, the rejections of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously presented in the Office Action sent September 10, 2025 have been withdrawn.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed December 9, 2025, the rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously presented in the Office Action sent September 10, 2025 have been substantially maintained and modified only in response to the Amendments to the Claims.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-19 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 9-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 219696463 U included in Applicant submitted IDS filed April 17, 2025) in view of Yu et al. (CN 115172477 A), Zhao et al. (CN 116705910 A), Zhang et al. (CN 113629171 A), and Wang (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0145617 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Chen et al. disclose a method for preparing a solar cell, comprising following steps,
S1, providing a substrate (1, Fig. 1), which comprises
a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (as depicted in Fig. 1, the cited substrate 1 comprises a first top surface and a second bottom surface opposite to the cited first top surface);
S2, forming a protective material layer on the first surface, and removing a part of the protective material layer on a preset first doped region to prepare a protective layer by means of laser treatment (see [0077-0078] teaching “then forms a mask layer on the front of the first boron diffusion layer” and “laser windowing to remove the mask layer in a local area”);
S3, performing a first doping process in the preset first doped region on the substrate to prepare a substrate comprising a first doped region (see first doped region 21, Fig. 1 and see [0080] teaching “second boron diffusion step to form a second boron diffusion layer at the groove”), and
S4, removing the protective layer (see [0087] teaching removing the mask layer) and
preparing a passivated contact structure on the second surface (see passivated contact structure 6 depicted in Fig. 1 as on the cited second bottom surface and see [0097]); and
S5, preparing a first passivation layer and a first anti-reflection layer stacked on the first surface (see [0102] teaching forming front/first passivation layer 3 and front/first anti-reflection layer 4).
Chen et al. does not teach wherein a width of the first doped region is in a range of 10 µm to 35 µm.
However, the width of the first doped region is a result effective variable and Yu et al. teaches the width of the first doped region directly affects the contact area and contact resistance of the substrate and electrode as well as the optical radiation loss and efficiency of the cell (see [0055]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the width of the first doped region in the method of Chen et al. and arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the contact area and contact resistance of the substrate and electrode as well as the optical radiation loss and efficiency of the solar cell.
Chen et al. does not disclose wherein a material of the protective layer is photo-sensitive glue.
However, Zhao et al. discloses a method for preparing a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a material of a protective layer/mask can include photo-sensitive glue (see [0008-0009]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the photo-sensitive glue material suggested by Zhao et al. for the material of the cited protective layer in the method of Chen et al. because the selection of a material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
Chen et al. does not disclose wherein a material of the firs passivation layer is gallium oxide.
However, Zhang et al. discloses a method for preparing a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a material of a first passivation layer can be gallium oxide (see [0023]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the gallium oxide material suggested by Zhang et al. for the material of the cited first passivation layer in the method of Chen et al. because the selection of a material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
Chen et al. discloses wherein the step of removing the part of the protective material layer on the preset first doped region to prepare the protective layer comprises: removing the part of the protective material layer on the preset first doped region to prepare the protective layer by means of laser treatment (see [0078] teaching “laser windowing to remove the mask layer in a local area”), but does not teach, in step S2, the claimed conditions of the laser treatment.
However, Wang teaches a method for preparing a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches conditions of the laser treatment include a rated power of the laser treatment, a frequency of the laser treatment, a spot size of the laser treatment, and a void-solid ratio of the laser treatment (see, for example, [0098-0103] implicitly teaching the conditions, teaching “In addition to the energy, the lasers of different functions may also differ in the wavelength, the energy distribution, the spot size, shape, or the like”, and teaching the conditions affect the evaporation function of the laser). At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the rated power of the laser treatment, a frequency of the laser treatment, a spot size of the laser treatment, and a void-solid ratio of the laser treatment and arrive at the claimed ranges through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the evaporation function of the laser.
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the conditions for the laser treatment in the method of Chen et al., as modified above, for the conditions for a laser treatment suggested by Wang because the simple substitution of a known element known in the art to perform the same function, in the instant case conditions for a laser treatment to remove a protective layer in a solar cell, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2143 B).
With regard to claim 2, independent claim 1 is obvious over Chen et al. in view of Yu et al., Zhao et al., Zhang et al., and Wang under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Chen et al. discloses wherein
before the step of forming the protective material layer on the first surface, the method further comprises a step of texturing the substrate (see [0074] teaching “texturing process…to form pyramid texturing surfaces on the front and back sides of the silicon wafer 1”).
With regard to claim 9, independent claim 1 is obvious over Chen et al. in view of Yu et al., Zhao et al., Zhang et al., and Wang under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Chen et al. discloses wherein
a sheet resistance of the first doped region is in a range of 40 Ω to 170 Ω (see [0043] teaching between 80 and 120).
Chen et al. does not specifically teach the claimed surface concentration of the first doped region.
However, the surface concentration of the first doped region is a result affective variable directly affecting the resistance of the first doped region (see [0043]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the surface concentration of the first doped region in the method of Chen et al. and arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the resistance of the first doped region.
With regard to claim 10, independent claim 1 is obvious over Chen et al. in view of Yu et al., Zhao et al., Zhang et al., and Wang under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Chen et al. discloses wherein
after the step of preparing the passivated contact structure on the second surface, the method further comprises: preparing a second anti-reflection layer on the passivated contact structure (see [0102] teaching preparing back/second anti-reflection layer 7).
With regard to claim 11, dependent claim 10 is obvious over Chen et al. in view of Yu et al., Zhao et al., Zhang et al., and Wang under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Chen et al. discloses wherein
after the step of preparing the first passivation layer and the first anti-reflection layer stacked on the first surface and preparing the second anti-reflection layer on the passivated contact structure, the method further comprises: preparing a first electrode penetrating through the first passivation layer and the first anti-reflection layer and connecting to the first doped region; and preparing a second electrode penetrating through the second anti-reflection layer and connecting to the passivated contact structure (see Fig. 1 and [0103] teaching preparing a first electrode 5 penetrating through the front/first passivation layer 3 and the front/first anti-reflection layer 4 and connecting to the first doped region 21 and preparing a second electrode 8 penetrating through the second anti-reflection layer 7 and connecting to the passivated contact structure 6).
With regard to claim 12, Chen et al., as modified above, discloses a solar cell prepare by the method of claim 1 (recall rejection of claim 1 above), comprising:
a substrate (1, Fig. 1), which comprises
a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (as depicted in Fig. 1, the cited substrate 1 comprises a first top surface and a second bottom surface opposite to the cited first top surface);
a first doped region disposed on the first surface of the substrate (21 depicted in Fig. 1 as disposed on the cited first top surface of the substrate 1), wherein
a width of the first doped region is in a range of 10 µm to 35 µm (recall rejection of claim 1 above, the width of the cited first doped region 21 optimized to arrive at the claimed range);
a passivated contact structure on the second surface of the substrate (6 depicted in Fig. 1 as on the cited second bottom surface of the substrate 1);
a first electrode (5, Fig. 1); and
a second electrode (8, Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 13, claim 12 is obvious over Chen et al. in view of Yu et al., Zhao et al., Zhang et al., and Wang under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Chen et al. discloses wherein
the passivated contact structure sequentially comprises a tunnel oxide layer and a doped polysilicon layer stacked together, and the tunnel oxide layer contacts with the substrate (as depicted in Fig. 1, the cited passivation contact structure sequentially comprises a tunnel oxide layer 61 and a doped polysilicon layer 62 stacked together and the tunnel oxide layer 61 contacts with the substrate 1).
With regard to claim 14, claim 12 is obvious over Chen et al. in view of Yu et al., Zhao et al., Zhang et al., and Wang under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Chen et al. discloses further comprising
a first passivation layer and a first anti-reflection layer stacked on the first surface (as depicted in Fig. 1, a front/first passivation layer 3 and a front/first anti-reflection layer 4 stacked on the cited first top surface).
With regard to claim 15, dependent claim 14 is obvious over Chen et al. in view of Yu et al., Zhao et al., Zhang et al., and Wang under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Chen et al. discloses further comprising
a second anti-reflection layer disposed on the passivated contact structure (as depicted in Fig. 1, a second anti-reflection layer 7 disposed on the cited passivated contact structure 6).
With regard to claim 16, dependent claim 15 is obvious over Chen et al. in view of Yu et al., Zhao et al., Zhang et al., and Wang under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Chen et al. discloses wherein
the first electrode penetrates through the first passivation layer and the first anti-reflection layer and connects to the first doped region (as depicted in Fig. 1, the cited first electrode 5 penetrates through the front/first passivation layer 3 and the front/first anti-reflection layer 4 and connects to the first doped region 21), and
the second electrode penetrates through the second anti-reflection layer and connects to the passivated contact structure (as depicted in Fig. 1, the cited second electrode 8 penetrates through the back/second anti-reflection layer 7 and connects to the passivated contact structure 6).
With regard to claim 17, dependent claim 15 is obvious over Chen et al. in view of Yu et al., Zhao et al., Zhang et al., and Wang under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Chen et al. discloses wherein
a material of the first anti-reflection layer is selected from the group consisting of silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, silicon oxide, and any combination thereof (see [0057] teaching “one or more of a silicon nitride layer, a silicon oxynitride layer, a silicon oxide layer”); and
a material of the second anti-reflection layer is selected from the group consisting of silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, silicon oxide, and any combination thereof (see [0062] teaching “one or more of a silicon nitride layer, a silicon oxynitride layer, a silicon oxide layer”).
With regard to claim 19, Chen et al. discloses an electrical device (see [0092] teaching “battery”), comprising
the solar cell of claim 1, wherein the solar cell is configured as a power source of the electrical device (recall rejection of claim 1 above wherein the solar cell is the source of power from photovoltaic conversion of light).
Claim(s) 3, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 219696463 U included in Applicant submitted IDS filed April 17, 2025) in view of Yu et al. (CN 115172477 A), Zhao et al. (CN 116705910 A), Zhang et al. (CN 113629171 A), and Wang (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0145617 A1), and in further view of Meng et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0126923 A1).
With regard to claim 3, dependent claim 2 is obvious over Chen et al. in view of Yu et al., Zhao et al., Zhang et al., and Wang under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Chen et al. discloses wherein conditions for the step of texturing the substrate comprise a texturing solution (see [0074] teaching “alkali texturing”), but does not teach the claimed conditions for the step of texturing the substrate.
However, Meng et al. teaches a method of preparing a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches conditions for a step of texturing a substrate can include a texturing solution comprises strong monobasic alkali (see [0094] teaching “texturing solution containing a monobasic strong base at a concentration of 0.15 mol/L to 0.35 mol/L for texturing for 400 s to 600 s”), texturing additive (see [0097] teaching texturing additive “has the functions of reducing the surface tension of the solution, improving the uniformity of the reaction, regulating the corrosion rate of the monobasic strong base, significantly reducing the reaction rate, and enhancing the anisotropy of the corrosion”), and second solvent (see [0094] teaching “texturing solution containing a monobasic strong base at a concentration of 0.15 mol/L to 0.35 mol/L”), a time of the step of texturing the substrate is in a range of 350s to 550s (see [0094] teaching “texturing solution containing a monobasic strong base at a concentration of 0.15 mol/L to 0.35 mol/L for texturing for 400 s to 600 s”), and a temperature of the step of texturing the substrate is in a range of 70 °C to 85 °C (see [0123] teaching “80 °C”).
Meng et al. does not specifically teach the claimed concentration of the strong monobasic alkali and the texturing additive.
However, the differences in concentration generally will not support patentability unless there is evidence indicating such concentrations are critical (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the concentrations of the strong monobasic alkali and the texturing additive and arrive at the claimed ranges through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the rate of texturing and the reduction of the surface tension of the solution, improvement of the uniformity of the reaction, regulation of the corrosion rate of the monobasic strong base, significant reduction of the reaction rate, and enhancement of the anisotropy of the corrosion.
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the conditions for the step of texturing the substrate in the method of Chen et al., as modified above, for the conditions for the step of texturing a substrate exemplified by Meng et al. because the simple substitution of a known element known in the art to perform the same function, in the instant case conductions for texturing a solar cell substrate, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2143 B).
With regard to claim 6, independent claim 1 is obvious over Chen et al. in view of Yu et al., Zhao et al., Zhang et al., and Wang under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Chen et al. discloses wherein after the step of removing the part of the protective material layer on the preset first doped region to prepare the protective layer, and before the step of performing the first doping process in the preset first doped region on the substrate to prepare the substrate comprising the first doped region, the method further comprises a step of subjecting the substrate comprising the protective layer to a first washing process (see [0079] teaching “secondary texturing on the laser windowing area to reform the texture structure, remove the laser damaged layer, and form a groove”), wherein conditions for the first washing process comprises: a cleaning liquid for the first washing process (see [0074] exemplifying “alkali texturing”), but does not disclose the claimed conditions for the first washing process.
However, Meng et al. teaches a method of preparing a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches texturing a substrate can include conditions for a first washing process comprising a cleaning liquid comprising a strong monobasic alkali (see [0094] teaching “texturing solution containing a monobasic strong base at a concentration of 0.15 mol/L to 0.35 mol/L”), texturing additive (see [0097] teaching texturing additive “has the functions of reducing the surface tension of the solution, improving the uniformity of the reaction, regulating the corrosion rate of the monobasic strong base, significantly reducing the reaction rate, and enhancing the anisotropy of the corrosion”), and first solvent (see [0094] teaching “texturing solution containing a monobasic strong base at a concentration of 0.15 mol/L to 0.35 mol/L”), a time of the first washing process (see [0094] teaching “texturing solution containing a monobasic strong base at a concentration of 0.15 mol/L to 0.35 mol/L for texturing for 400 s to 600 s”), and a temperature of the first washing process is in a range of 60 °C to 80 °C (see [0123] teaching “80 °C”).
Meng et al. does not specifically teach the claimed concentration of the strong monobasic alkali and the texturing additive and the time of the first washing process.
However, the differences in concentration generally will not support patentability unless there is evidence indicating such concentrations are critical (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the concentrations of the strong monobasic alkali and the texturing additive and the time of the first washing process arrive at the claimed ranges through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the rate of texturing and the reduction of the surface tension of the solution, improvement of the uniformity of the reaction, regulation of the corrosion rate of the monobasic strong base, significant reduction of the reaction rate, and enhancement of the anisotropy of the corrosion.
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the conditions for the first washing process in the method of Chen et al., as modified above, for the conditions for a first washing process exemplified by Meng et al. because the simple substitution of a known element known in the art to perform the same function, in the instant case conductions for texturing a solar cell substrate, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2143 B).
With regard to claim 8, independent claim 1 is obvious over Chen et al. in view of Yu et al., Zhao et al., Zhang et al., Wang under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Chen et al. does not disclose wherein the step of removing the protective layer comprises a step of subjecting the substrate comprising the first doped region to a second washing process.
However, Meng et al. discloses a method of preparing a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a step of removing a protective mask layer can comprise a step of subjecting the substrate to a second washing process (see [0122-0123]); conditions for the second washing process comprises: washing the substrate with a hydrofluoric acid solution for a time (see [0122-0123]), and a percentage of hydrofluoric acid in the hydrofluoric acid solution is in a range of 40% to 80% (see [0122-0123]).
Meng et al. does not teach the specific time of washing the substrate. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the time of washing the substrate and arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the rate of washing the substrate.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 219696463 U included in Applicant submitted IDS filed April 17, 2025) in view of Yu et al. (CN 115172477 A), Zhao et al. (CN 116705910 A), Zhang et al. (CN 113629171 A), and Wang (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0145617 A1), and in further view of Fan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0072156 A1).
With regard to claim 4, independent claim 1 is obvious over Chen et al. in view of Yu et al., Zhao et al., Zhang et al., and Wang under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Chen et al. does not disclose wherein the method for preparing the protective layer is selected from the group consisting of a wet oxidation method, a dry oxidation method, an LPCVD method, a high temperature oxidation method in a tube furnace, and any combination thereof.
However, Fan et al. discloses a method for preparing a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a method of preparing a protective mask layer can be LPCVD (see [0054]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the method of preparing the protective layer of Chen et al. for the method of preparing a protective mask layer of Fan et al. because the simple substitution of a known element known in the art to perform the same function, in the instant case a method of preparing a protective layer in a solar cell, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2143 B).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 219696463 U included in Applicant submitted IDS filed April 17, 2025) in view of Yu et al. (CN 115172477 A), Zhao et al. (CN 116705910 A), Zhang et al. (CN 113629171 A), and Wang (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0145617 A1), and in further view of VerNooy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0234602 A1).
With regard to claim 18, dependent claim 16 is obvious over Chen et al. in view of Yu et al., Zhao et al., Zhang et al., and Wang under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Chen et al. discloses the second electrode is a silver electrode (see [0099]), but does not disclose wherein the first electrode is a silver-aluminum electrode.
However, VerNooy et al. discloses a method for preparing a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a first electrode can be a silver-aluminum electrode (see 105, Fig. 1 and see [0078]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the silver-aluminum material of VerNooy et al. for the material of the first electrode of Chen et al. because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case a material for a front electrode of a solar cell, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes the newly added claimed limitations are not found within the previously cited prior art references. However, this argument is addressed in the rejections of the claims above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DUSTIN Q DAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5120. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/DUSTIN Q DAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 February 25, 2026