DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification Objections
Specification is objected to because of the informality in “(SiNj)” at line 8 in paragraph [0006], at line 2 in paragraph [0087], at line 1 in paragraph [0088], at line 3 in paragraph [0088], at line 10 in paragraph [0135], respectively. Examiner suggests changing “(SiNj)” to “(SiiNj)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1 is objected to because of the informality in the recitation “(SiNj)” in line 8. Examiner suggests changing the recitation to “(SiiNj)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten or amended in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YUAN (CN 114256385 A, see English Machine Translation) in view of MITTA (US 20190221700 A1), EISENBERG (US 20190109257 A1), and ISHIKAWA (US 20090194151 A1).
Regarding claim 1, YUAN teaches a solar cell (see the TBC back contact solar cell; see Figs. 1-10), comprising:
a silicon substrate (see the N type silicon wafer substrate 1; see Fig. 10), having a front surface and a rear surface opposite to the front surface (see the top surface and the back surface of the substrate 1, wherein the top surface is opposite to the back surface; see Fig. 10), wherein the silicon substrate includes at least one of a phosphorus (P) element, a bismuth (Bi) element, an antimony (Sb) element, or an arsenic (As) element (The N type silicon wafer substrate 1 necessarily includes a n-type dopant, but does not explicitly disclose the claimed “at least one of a phosphorus (P) element, a bismuth (Bi) element, an antimony (Sb) element, or an arsenic (As) element”. However, MITTA discloses a back contact type solar cell, wherein an n-type silicon substrate contains impurities such as phosphorus [0040]. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the phosphorus for the n-type dopant in the N type silicon wafer substrate in YUAN as taught by MITTA, because phosphorus is a recognized doping element to create an N-doped silicon substrate and because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144));
a passivation layer (see the Al2O3 film, which has passivation property; see [n0033]) including an aluminum oxide (AlxOy) material (see Al2O3 material) formed over the front surface ([n0033] First, a 2-15 nm thick Al2O3 dielectric film is deposited on the positive surface of the N-type crystalline silicon substrate), wherein 1/3≤x/y≤3, x/y representing a ratio of content of aluminum to content of oxygen in the passivation layer (see Al2O3; x/y is 2/3);
a first antireflection layer (see the SiNx film) including a silicon nitride (SiNj) material (see SiNx material) formed over the passivation layer (see Fig. 10 and [n0033]), wherein 0.5≤i/j≤10, i/j representing a ratio of content of silicon to content of nitrogen in the first antireflection layer (YUAN does not explicitly disclose the claimed ratio. However, EISENBERG discloses a photovoltaic cell, wherein a passivating and/or antireflective coating (e.g., an aluminum oxide, silicon oxide, silicon nitride and/or silicon oxynitride coating) may optionally be deposited [0116], wherein the example of silicon nitride is Si3N4 [0017]. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the Si3N4 material for the SiNx material in the device of YUAN as taught by EISENBERG, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144). Therefore, modified EISENBERG teaches i/j is 3/4);
a second antireflection layer (see the SiOxNy film) including a silicon oxynitride (SicNdOe) material (see the SiOxNy material) formed over the first antireflection layer (see Fig. 10 and [n0033]), wherein 0.5≤c/d≤10, and 0.25≤d/e≤2, c/d representing a ratio of content of silicon to content of nitrogen in the second antireflection layer, and d/e representing a ratio of content of nitrogen to content of oxygen in the second antireflection layer (YUAN does not explicitly disclose the claimed ratio. However, EISENBERG discloses a photovoltaic cell, wherein a passivating and/or antireflective coating (e.g., an aluminum oxide, silicon oxide, silicon nitride and/or silicon oxynitride coating) may optionally be deposited [0116], wherein the phrase “silicon oxynitride” refers to SiNxOy, wherein each of x and y is between 0.1 and 2) [0018]. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the SiNxOy with x and y between 0.1 and 2 material for the SiOxNy material in the device of YUAN as taught by EISENBERG, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144). Therefore, modified EISENBERG teaches 0.5≤c/d≤10 and 0.05≤d/e≤20; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected ratio within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).);
a third antireflection layer (see the SiOx film) including a silicon oxide (SiaOb) material (see the SiOx material) formed over the second antireflection layer (see Fig. 10 and [n0033]), wherein 0.5≤a/b≤3, a/b representing a ratio of content of silicon to content of oxygen in the third antireflection layer (YUAN does not explicitly disclose the claimed ratio. However, ISHIKAWA (US 20090194151 A1) discloses a silicon solar cell with an antireflective film formed of Si3N4, SiO2, or the like (see [0051]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the SiO2 material for the SiOx material in the device of YUAN as taught by ISHIKAWA, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144). Therefore, modified EISENBERG teaches a/b is 0.5);
a tunneling dielectric layer (see the first tunneling oxide layer 3; [n0059] The first tunneling oxide layer 3 is made of SiO2, which is dielectric material) formed over the rear surface (see Fig. 10); and
a doped conductive layer (see the p+ doped layer 4, which is conductive for charge carriers) formed over the tunneling dielectric layer (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 2, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
YUAN teaches the third antireflection layer has an uneven surface facing away from the second antireflection layer (see the rejection of claim 1, Fig. 10, and [n0033] the passivation and antireflection layer 2 on the front side of the silicon wafer is a dielectric layer composed of Al2O3, SiNx, SiOxNy, and SiOx; The SiOx flim has an uneven surface facing away from the SiNxNy film).
Regarding claim 3, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
YUAN teaches the third antireflection layer has a minimum thickness and a maximum thickness, and a ratio of the minimum thickness to the maximum thickness is not greater than 0.5 ([n0033] the thickness of SiOx is 1-50nm; The ratio of the minimum thickness to the maximum thickness of the SiOx film is 1/50 = 0.02).
Regarding claim 4, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified YUAN teaches in a direction away from the second antireflection layer (YUAN: see Fig. 10 and [n0033]), content percentage of silicon in the third antireflection layer gradually decreases, and content percentage of oxygen in the third antireflection layer gradually increases (YUAN: see Fig. 10 and [n0033] the passivation and antireflection layer 2 on the front side of the silicon wafer is a dielectric layer composed of Al2O3, SiNx, SiOxNy, and the thickness of SiOxNy is 30 nm, and the thickness of SiOx is 15 nm; Alternatively, the SiNx film corresponds to the claimed “first antireflection layer”, the bottom portion 15 nm thick film of the SiOxNy film corresponds to the claimed “second antireflection layer”, and the top portion 15 nm thick film of the SiOxNy film & the SiOx 15 nm thick film correspond to the claimed “third antireflection layer”; Since modified YUAN teaches the SiNxOy with x and y between 0.1 and 2 material and the SiO2 (see the rejection of claim 1), the content percentage of silicon in the top portion 15 nm thick film of the SiOxNy film (at x = 1 and y = 0.1) is 48% and the content percentage of silicon in the SiOx 15 nm thick film (at x = 2) is 33%, which corresponds to the claimed “content percentage of silicon in the third antireflection layer gradually decreases”, and the content percentage of oxygen in the top portion 15 nm thick film of the SiOxNy film (at x = 1 and y = 0.1) is 48% and the content percentage of oxygen in the SiOx 15 nm thick film (at x = 2) is 67%, which corresponds to the claimed “content percentage of oxygen in the third antireflection layer gradually increases”; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected content percentage and thickness within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).).
Regarding claim 5, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 4.
Modified YUAN teaches the third antireflection layer includes N third sub-antireflection layers (see the top portion 15 nm thick film of the SiOxNy film & the SiOx 15 nm thick film) stacked in the direction away from the second antireflection layer (YUAN: see Fig. 10 and [n0033]), each of the N third sub-antireflection layers includes a silicon oxide material (see the silicon oxide material in the top portion 15 nm thick film of the SiOxNy film & the SiOx 15 nm thick film), wherein N is a positive integer greater than or equal to 2 (N is 2); and in the direction away from the second antireflection layer (YUAN: see Fig. 10 and [n0033]), content percentage of silicon in the N third sub-antireflection layers decreases layer by layer (see the rejection of claim 4), and content percentage of oxygen in the N third sub-antireflection layers increases layer by layer (see the rejection of claim 4) (Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected content percentage and thickness within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)).
Regarding claim 6, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 5.
Modified YUAN teaches in the direction away from the second antireflection layer (YUAN: see Fig. 10 and [n0033]), a single third sub-antireflection layer is 2 nm to 15 nm in thickness (see the top portion 15 nm thick film of the SiOxNy film & the SiOx 15 nm thick film), and the third antireflection layer is 2 nm to 40 nm in thickness (see the top portion 15 nm thick film of the SiOxNy film & the SiOx 15 nm thick film; The third antireflection layer is 30 nm in thickness) (Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have thickness within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)).
Regarding claim 7, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 5.
Modified YUAN teaches a single third sub-antireflection layer has uniformly-distributed silicon content and uniformly-distributed oxygen content (YUAN: see Fig. 10 and [n0033]; Each of the top portion 15 nm thick film of the SiOxNy film & the SiOx 15 nm thick film deposited by PECVD is considered to have uniformly-distributed silicon content and uniformly-distributed oxygen content).
Regarding claim 8, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
YUAN teaches the third antireflection layer is 2 nm to 40 nm in thickness ([n0033] the thickness of SiOx is 1-50nm; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected thickness within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).).
Regarding claim 9, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 8.
YUAN teaches the tunneling dielectric layer is 1 nm to 2.5 nm in thickness ([n0059]
The first tunneling oxide layer 3 is made of SiO2, with a preferred thickness of 1-3 nm), and the third antireflection layer is thicker than the tunneling dielectric layer ([n0033] the thickness of SiOx is 1-50nm; When the thickness of the SiOx film is 4-50nm, the SiOx film is thicker than the first tunneling oxide layer 3; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected thickness within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).).
Regarding claim 10, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified YUAN teaches the third antireflection layer further includes nitrogen, and content percentage of nitrogen in the third antireflection layer is less than 5% ([n0033] the passivation and antireflection layer 2 on the front side of the silicon wafer is a dielectric layer composed of Al2O3, SiNx, SiOxNy, and SiOx; Alternatively, the top portion of film of the SiOxNy film and the SiOx film are considered to correspond to the claimed “third antireflection layer”; Since modified YUAN teaches the SiNxOy with x and y between 0.1 and 2 material, when x = 0.1 and y = 2, the content percentage of nitrogen in the third antireflection layer is less than 5%; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected content percentage within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).).
Regarding claim 11, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified YUAN teaches in a direction away from the passivation layer (YUAN: see Fig. 10 and [n0033]), content percentage of silicon in the first antireflection layer gradually decreases, and content percentage of nitrogen in the first antireflection layer gradually increases (YUAN: see Fig. 10 and [n0033] the passivation and antireflection layer 2 on the front side of the silicon wafer is a dielectric layer composed of Al2O3, SiNx, SiOxNy, and the thickness of SiNx is 10 nm, and the thickness of SiOxNy is 30 nm; Alternatively, the SiNx 10 nm thick film & the bottom portion 15 nm thick film of SiOxNy film correspond to the claimed “first antireflection layer”, the top portion 15 nm thick film of the SiOxNy film corresponds to the claimed “second antireflection layer”, and the SiOx film correspond to the claimed “third antireflection layer”; Since modified YUAN teaches the Si3N4 material and the SiNxOy with x and y between 0.1 and 2 material (see the rejection of claim 1), the content percentage of silicon in the SiNx 10 nm thick film (at x = 4/3) is 43% and the content percentage of silicon in the bottom portion 15 nm thick film of the SiOxNy film (at x = 0.1 and y = 2) is 32%, which corresponds to the claimed “content percentage of silicon in the first antireflection layer gradually decreases”, and the content percentage of nitrogen in the SiNx 10 nm thick film (at x = 4/3) is 57% and the content percentage of nitrogen in the bottom portion 15 nm thick film of the SiOxNy film (at x = 0.1 and y = 2) is 65%, which corresponds to the claimed “content percentage of nitrogen in the first antireflection layer gradually increases”; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected content percentage and thickness within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).).
Regarding claim 12, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 11.
Modified YUAN teaches the first antireflection layer includes M first sub-antireflection layers (see the SiNx 10 nm thick film & the bottom portion 15 nm thick film of SiOxNy film) stacked in the direction away from the passivation layer (YUAN: see Fig. 10 and [n0033]), each of the M first sub-antireflection layers includes a silicon nitride material (see the silicon nitride material in the SiNx 10 nm thick film & the bottom portion 15 nm thick film of SiOxNy film), wherein M is a positive integer greater than or equal to 2 (N is 2); and in the direction away from the passivation layer (YUAN: see Fig. 10 and [n0033]), content percentage of silicon in the M first sub-antireflection layers decreases layer by layer (see the rejection of claim 11), and content percentage of nitrogen in the M first sub-antireflection layers increases layer by layer (see the rejection of claim 11).
Regarding claim 13, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 12.
Modified YUAN teaches thicknesses of the M first sub-antireflection layers increase layer by layer in the direction away from the passivation layer (see the SiNx 10 nm thick film & the bottom portion 15 nm thick film of SiOxNy film, in which the thicknesses increase layer by layer), one of the M first sub-antireflection layers closest to the passivation layer is 2 nm to 15 nm in thickness (see 10 nm in the SiNx 10 nm thick film), and the first antireflection layer is 5 nm to 50 nm in thickness (see the SiNx 10 nm thick film & the bottom portion 15 nm thick film of SiOxNy film; see 25 nm in thickness) (Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have thickness within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.)).
Regarding claim 14, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 12.
Modified YUAN teaches a single first sub-antireflection layer has uniformly-distributed silicon content and uniformly-distributed nitrogen content (YUAN: see Fig. 10 and [n0033]; Each of the SiNx 10 nm thick film & the bottom portion 15 nm thick film of SiOxNy film deposited by PECVD is considered to have uniformly-distributed silicon content and uniformly-distributed nitrogen content).
Regarding claim 15, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified YUAN teaches the first antireflection layer further includes oxygen, and content percentage of oxygen in the first antireflection layer is less than 5% ([n0033] the passivation and antireflection layer 2 on the front side of the silicon wafer is a dielectric layer composed of Al2O3, SiNx, SiOxNy, and SiOx; Alternatively, the SiNx film and the bottom portion of film of the SiOxNy film are considered to correspond to the claimed “first antireflection layer”; Since modified YUAN teaches the SiNxOy with x and y between 0.1 and 2 material, when x = 2 and y = 0.1, the content percentage of oxygen in the first antireflection layer is less than 5%; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected content percentage within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).).
Regarding claim 16, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified YUAN teaches in a direction away from the first antireflection layer (YUAN: see Fig. 10 and [n0033]), content percentage of silicon in the second antireflection layer gradually decreases, content percentage of nitrogen in the second antireflection layer gradually decreases, and content percentage of oxygen in the second antireflection layer gradually increases (YUAN: see Fig. 10 and [n0033] the passivation and antireflection layer 2 on the front side of the silicon wafer is a dielectric layer composed of Al2O3, SiNx, SiOxNy, and the thickness of SiOxNy is 15 nm, and the thickness of SiOx is 30 nm; Alternatively, the SiNx film corresponds to the claimed “first antireflection layer”, the SiOxNy 15 nm thick film & the bottom portion 15 nm thick film of the SiOx film correspond to the claimed “second antireflection layer”, and the top portion 15 nm thick film of the SiOx film corresponds to the claimed “third antireflection layer”; Since modified YUAN teaches the SiNxOy with x and y between 0.1 and 2 material and the SiO2 (see the rejection of claim 1), the content percentage of silicon in the SiOxNy film (at x = 0.1 and y = 1) is 48% and the content percentage of silicon in the bottom portion 15 nm thick film of the SiOx film (at x = 2) is 33%, which corresponds to the claimed “content percentage of silicon in the second antireflection layer gradually decreases”, the content percentage of nitrogen in the SiOxNy film (at x = 0.1 and y = 1) is 48% and the content percentage of nitrogen in the bottom portion 15 nm thick film of the SiOx film (at x = 2) is 0%, which corresponds to the claimed “content percentage of nitrogen in the second antireflection layer gradually decreases”, and the content percentage of oxygen in the SiOxNy film (at x = 0.1 and y = 1) is 4.7% and the content percentage of oxygen in the bottom portion 15 nm thick film of the SiOx film (at x = 2) is 67%, which corresponds to the claimed “content percentage of oxygen in the second antireflection layer gradually increases”; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected content percentage and thickness within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).).
Regarding claim 18, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 16.
Modified YUAN teaches in the direction away from the first antireflection layer (YUAN: see Fig. 10 and [n0033]), a single second sub-antireflection layer is 5 nm to 40 nm in thickness (see the SiOxNy 15 nm thick film & the bottom portion 15 nm thick film of the SiOx film), and the second antireflection layer is 10 nm to 60 nm in thickness (see the SiOxNy 15 nm thick film & the bottom portion 15 nm thick film of the SiOx film; The second antireflection layer is 30 nm in thickness).
Regarding claim 19, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
Modified YUAN teaches the second antireflection layer is 10 nm to 60 nm in thickness ([n0033] the thickness of SiOxNy is 1- 80nm; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected thickness within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See 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) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COSTA (US 20170240670 A1) in view of YUAN (CN 114256385 A, see English Machine Translation), MITTA (US 20190221700 A1), EISENBERG (US 20190109257 A1), and ISHIKAWA (US 20090194151 A1).
Regarding claim 20, COSTA teaches a photovoltaic module (see the photovoltaic module in Fig. 1), comprising: a plurality of cell strings (see the four cell strings), each formed by connecting a plurality of solar cells (Each of four cell strings is formed by connecting a plurality of photovoltaic cells), an encapsulation film (see the front and rear encapsulants), configured to cover surfaces of the plurality of cell strings (see Fig. 1); and a cover plate (see the glass front cover), configured to cover a surface of the encapsulation film facing away from the plurality of cell strings (see Fig. 1).
Regarding the claimed “each of the plurality of solar cells being the solar cell according to claim 1”, COSTA discloses silicon based material, e.g. crystalline silicon, is a non-limiting example of materials used in photovoltaic cell(s) [0034], but does not explicitly disclose the claimed feature. However, YUAN in view of MITTA, EISENBERG, and ISHIKAWA teaches “the solar cell according to claim 1” (see the rejection of claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the solar cell described in the rejection of claim 1 for the photovoltaic cell of COSTA, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE-SIK KANG whose telephone number is 571-272-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am – 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T. Martin can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE-SIK KANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728