DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-17 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 1, 15 and 16 have been amended.
Claim(s) 17 has been added.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: The last line of claim 17 has underlined text. However, underlined text must be used only to show added subject matter in claims that are currently amended. As claim 17 is a new claim, said underlining is improper (“[a]ny claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of "new" and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining) (see 37 C.F.R. 1.121(c)(2)-(c)(3)]. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 and 21-22 of copending Application No. 18/169,576 in view of “Modeling and testing the mechanical strength of solar cells”, Kaule et al. (Cited in IDS).
Instant claims 1-16 and co-pending claims 1-14 and 21-22 are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of the instant claims can be found in the co-pending claims except for (i) the mono- or poly-crystalline silicon wafer being free of aluminum-silicon eutectic spikes, and (ii) the specified radius of curvature of about 6 meters to about 3.4 meters.
However, as recognized by Applicant, said limitation is well known from Kaule et al. (hereinafter “Kaule”). Kaule discloses that aluminum-silicon eutectic spikes formed at Al paste/Si wafer interface make the site susceptible to crack nucleation [Figs. 2 and 8-9; see also Introduction].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the co-pending claims such that the mono- or poly-crystalline silicon wafer is free of aluminum-silicon eutectic spikes in order to avoid propagation of cracks.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Unsupported Bending Mechanism
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 16
The amended claims recite the limitation “with a shaped determined only by said substrate and said superstrate.” The originally filed specification does not describe or suggest that the bending of the solar cells occurs exclusively due to forces imparted by said substrate and said superstrate, nor does it disclose the exclusion of other bending mechanisms, such as external forming forces, tooling, pre-curving, molds, frames, or other processes. The use of the term “only” introduces an exclusive functional limitation that is not supported by the original disclosure. While the specification may generally describe curved photovoltaic cells, such disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of a configuration in which bending occurs solely due to substrate and superstrate forces, to the exclusion of all other forces. Arguments or affidavit statements attempting to characterize the bending mechanism cannot supply this missing disclosure and do not cure the written-description deficiency.
Regarding claims 2-14
Claims 2-14 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1, thereby necessarily including the unsupported limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,717,790, Gochermann in view of US 2015/0136207, Giron et al. and US 2019/0296166, Huang et al.
Regarding claims 1, 15 and 16
Gochermann teaches a solar panel [see Fig. 2] comprising:
a substrate (7) and a superstrate (4) each including one or more preformed layers [Fig. 2 and Col. 1, lines 55-66], said substrate (7) and superstrate (4) being pre-formed in a complementary shape when said solar panel is in an assembled configuration [Col. 1, lines 55-66]; and
a core disposed therebetween, said core comprising a solar cell array (6) including at least one solar cell (6), said solar cell array (6) being encapsulated by one or more encapsulant layers (5) [Fig. 2 and Col. 1, lines 55-66];
wherein in said assembled configuration, said core is integrally formed with said substrate (7) and said superstrate (4) such that said at least one solar cell (6) of said solar cell array is doubly bent (at least one solar cell can be bent along two orthogonal axes) [Fig. 2 and Col. 1, lines 55-60].
Gochermann is silent to the at least one solar cell including polycrystalline silicon or a monocrystalline silicon wafer having a thickness of less than 0.4 mm (instant claim 1), less than 0.40 mm and greater than about 0.12 mm (instant claim 15), and ranging from about 0.12 mm to about 0.18 mm (instant claim 16).
Giron, similar to Gochermann, teaches a curved solar cell module comprising a core layer including a solar cell array of monocrystalline of polycrystalline silicon solar cells (6) having a thickness of 10 µm to 500 µm (0.02 mm to 0.5 mm) [Fig. 1, paragraphs 0021 and 0059-0062].
Gochermann and Giron are analogous inventions in the field of curved solar panels. Because Giron teaches choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable photoactive absorber materials, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143].
Since Giron teaches that polycrystalline or monocrystalline silicon leads to the anticipated success, said materials are not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the solar cells within the array of Gochermann to have a thickness of between 10 µm to 500 µm (0.02 mm to 0.5 mm), as in Giron, because such provides suitable bendability/flexibility of the solar cells used in curved solar panels [Giron, paragraphs 0021 and 0030]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
With regards to the limitation “said mono- or poly-crystalline silicon wafer being free of aluminum-silicon eutectic spikes”, Modified Gochermann is silent to the solar cells including aluminum. As described in the instant published specification, aluminum-silicon eutectic spikes form as a result of alloying between aluminum and silicon at the interface of the silicon waver during contact firing [paras. 0098, 0101 and 0105]. The specification explains that aluminum paste or aluminum-contacting layers contact silicon, resulting in diffusion and eutectic formation that produces spikes. Accordingly, the formation of aluminum-silicon eutectic spikes is dependent on the presence of aluminum in contact with the silicon wafer. In the absence of aluminum at the silicon interface, such aluminum-silicon eutectic spike does not formation does not occur.
In the alternative, Huang is cited below.
Huang teaches a flexible photovoltaic cell wherein a flexible conductive substrate may be selected from a stainless-steel foil, a titanium foil, a copper foil, an aluminum foil, or a beryllium foil. Huang further shows that back conductive layers may be made of a thin flexible layer of a metal such as molybdenum (Mo), niobium (Nb), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), and combinations and alloys thereof. (Paragraph [0036]).
Therefore, because Huang teaches choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable materials for the flexible substrate and the back electrode layers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Huang teaches that materials other than aluminum (e.g., copper) lead to the anticipated success, the limitation “said mono- or poly-crystalline silicon wafer being free of aluminum-silicon eutectic spikes” is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
Selection of a material that does not include aluminum (i.e., copper) at the silicon interface eliminates the aluminum-silicon interaction responsible for said eutectic spike formation, thereby resulting in a silicon wafer that is free of aluminum silicon eutectic spikes, as claimed.
Regarding claim 2
The limitation “wherein said one or more preformed layers of said substrate and said superstrate comprise preformed and thermally or chemically strengthened glass” is considered a product-by-process limitation. The limitation does not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. Further, said limitation does not impart any additional structure to the claimed product.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113].
It is noted that Gochermann teaches thermally preforming the substrate and the superstrate [Col 1, lines 56-67].
Regarding claim 3
The limitation “wherein said one or more preformed layers of said substrate and said superstrate comprise preformed layers that have been laminated and thermoformed” is considered a product-by-process limitation. The limitation does not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. Further, said limitation does not impart any additional structure to the claimed product.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113].
Regarding claim 4
Modified Gochermann teaches the solar panel as set forth above, wherein said assembled configuration comprises said substrate (7), said core (6), and said superstrate (4) [Fig. 2].
The limitation “that have undergone a lamination process” is considered a product-by-process limitation. The limitation does not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. Further, said limitation does not impart any additional structure to the claimed product.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113].
Regarding claim 5
The limitation “wherein said lamination process applies substantially uniform pressure across the at least one doubly bent solar cell of the solar cell array” is considered a product-by-process limitation. The limitation does not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. Further, said limitation does not impart any additional structure to the claimed product.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113]
Regarding claim 6
The limitation “wherein said substantially uniform pressure comprises applying pressure so that said substrate initially moves said at least one cell at a downward-facing side center, and said superstrate simultaneously moves said at least one cell at upward- facing side corners, thereby bending said at least one cell by applying said substantially uniform pressure” is considered a product-by-process limitation.
The limitation does not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. Further, said limitation does not impart any additional structure to the claimed product.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113]
Claim(s) 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,717,790, Gochermann in view of US 2015/0136207, Giron et al. and US 2019/0296166, Huang et al. as applied to claims 1-6, 15 and 16 above, and further in view of US 2013/0122719, De Vries.
Regarding claims 7-9
All the limitations of claim 1 have been set forth above.
Modified Gochermann does not teach either or both of said substrate and said superstrate comprising an outer protective layer, an inner rigid layer and one adhesive layer disposed therebetween.
De Vries teaches a flexible thin material (12) for use as a substrate or superstrate for PV cells or PV panels [Fig. 3a and paragraph 0007], the flexible thin material (12) comprising an outer protective layer (9), an inner rigid layer (6) and one adhesive layer (14) disposed therebetween [Fig. 3a and paragraph 0052]. Said combination of the outer protective layer, the inner rigid layer and the adhesive therebetween providing a very good and uniform layer which is particularly suited to be adhered to a second substrate using an adhesive layer [paragraph 0014].
Modified Gochermann and De Vries are analogous inventions in the field of substrates and superstrates for used in solar cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing ta of the invention to modify either or both of said substrate and said superstrate in Modified Gochermann to comprise an outer protective layer, an inner rigid layer and one adhesive layer disposed therebetween, as in De Vries, because such provides a very good and uniform layer which is particularly suited to be adhered to a second substrate using an adhesive layer [De Vries, paragraph 0014].
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) [MPEP 2144.07].
Regarding claim 10
Modified Gochermann teaches the solar panel as set forth above, wherein said inner rigid layer (6) is a material selected from the group consisting of: polycarbonate (PC), glass, polypropylene (PP), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyvinylchloride (PVC), polyethylene (PE), cyclic olefin copolymer (COC), and fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP) [paragraph 0052].
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) [MPEP 2144.07].
Regarding claim 11
Modified Gochermann teaches the solar panel as set forth above, wherein said outer protective layer (9) is a material selected from the group consisting of: ethylene tetrafluoroethylene (ETFE), glass, and ethylene chlorotrifluoroethylene (ECTFE) [paragraph 0052].
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) [MPEP 2144.07].
Regarding claim 12
Modified Gochermann teaches the solar panel as set forth above, wherein said adhesive layer (15) is a material selected from the group consisting of: acrylic-based or silicone-based adhesive transfer tape [paragraph 0056].
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) [MPEP 2144.07].
Regarding claim 13
With regards to the limitation “wherein said inner rigid layer is a material having an elastic modulus ranging from about 1.79 GPa to about 3.24 GPa”, because the inner rigid layer (6) of the prior art is identical to the one claimed (e.g. PEN inner rigid layer), the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
The court has held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14
With regards to the limitation “wherein said outer protective layer is a material having an elastic modulus ranging from about from about 0.490 GPa to about 0.827 GPa”, because the outer protective layer (9) of the prior art is identical to the one claimed (ETFE or ECTFE), the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
The court has held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
It has been held that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP § 2112.01). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,717,790, Gochermann in view of US 2015/0136207, Giron et al. and US 2019/0296166, Huang et al.
Regarding claim 17
Gochermann teaches a solar panel [see Fig. 2] comprising:
a substrate (7) and a superstrate (4) each including one or more preformed layers [Fig. 2 and Col. 1, lines 55-66], said substrate (7) and superstrate (4) being pre-formed in a complementary shape when said solar panel is in an assembled configuration [Col. 1, lines 55-66]; and
a core disposed therebetween, said core comprising a solar cell array (6) including at least one solar cell (6), said solar cell array (6) being encapsulated by one or more encapsulant layers (5) [Fig. 2 and Col. 1, lines 55-66];
wherein in said assembled configuration, said core is integrally formed with said substrate (7) and said superstrate (4) such that said at least one solar cell (6) of said solar cell array is doubly bent (at least one solar cell can be bent along two orthogonal axes) [Fig. 2 and Col. 1, lines 55-60].
Regarding the limitation “said solar panel is of anticlastic shape”, Gochermann teaches the panel capable of bending along two orthogonal axes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious that bending along two orthogonal directions results in a curvature along those directions. Accordingly, the claimed “anticlastic shape” represents a predictable result of the bending mechanism disclosed in Gochermann.
Furthermore, since applicant has not disclosed that the claimed shape solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is essential and/or significant, the recited anticlastic curvature would be an obvious matter of design choice to one ordinarily skilled in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Gochermann is silent to the at least one solar cell including polycrystalline silicon or a monocrystalline silicon wafer having a thickness of less than 0.4 mm (instant claim 1), less than 0.40 mm and greater than about 0.12 mm (instant claim 15), and ranging from about 0.12 mm to about 0.18 mm (instant claim 16).
Giron, similar to Gochermann, teaches a curved solar cell module comprising a core layer including a solar cell array of monocrystalline of polycrystalline silicon solar cells (6) having a thickness of 10 µm to 500 µm (0.02 mm to 0.5 mm) [Fig. 1, paragraphs 0021 and 0059-0062].
Gochermann and Giron are analogous inventions in the field of curved solar panels. Because Giron teaches choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable photoactive absorber materials, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143].
Since Giron teaches that polycrystalline or monocrystalline silicon leads to the anticipated success, said materials are not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the solar cells within the array of Gochermann to have a thickness of between 10 µm to 500 µm (0.02 mm to 0.5 mm), as in Giron, because such provides suitable bendability/flexibility of the solar cells used in curved solar panels [Giron, paragraphs 0021 and 0030]. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
With regards to the limitation “said mono- or poly-crystalline silicon wafer being free of aluminum-silicon eutectic spikes”, Modified Gochermann is silent to the solar cells including aluminum. In the absence of any indication of the presence of aluminum and/or aluminum alloys, it is interpreted that there is not.
In the alternative, Huang is cited below.
Huang teaches a flexible photovoltaic cell wherein a flexible conductive substrate may be selected from a stainless-steel foil, a titanium foil, a copper foil, an aluminum foil, or a beryllium foil. Huang further shows that back conductive layers may be made of a thin flexible layer of a metal such as molybdenum (Mo), niobium (Nb), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), and combinations and alloys thereof. (Paragraph [0036]).
Therefore, because Huang teaches choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable materials for the flexible substrate and the back electrode layers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Huang teaches that materials other than aluminum (e.g., copper) lead to the anticipated success, the limitation “said mono- or poly-crystalline silicon wafer being free of aluminum-silicon eutectic spikes” is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143]. It is noted that in the case the electrode layers comprise copper, the limitation “substantially free of aluminum alloys” is met.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Filed on 09/30/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-16 under non-statutory double patenting have been considered but are not persuasive. As set forth above, Kaule provides motivation to modify the co-pending claims to comprise a mono- or poly-crystalline silicon wafer that is free from aluminum-silicon eutectic spikes.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Filed on 09/30/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
With regards to applicant’s argument that specifying a copper electrode layer does not necessarily exclude Al from the solar cell or the Si wafer, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On page 11 of the Remarks, applicant states the following: “Al-Si eutectic spiking requires an abundant source of Al, such as that found in the Al paste used in these solar cell structures. Also note that Al-pastes are not used in any of the IBC cells listed in the specification of the instant application. This explains why IBC cells may be doubly bent, while traditional Al-BSF and PERC cells may not.”
Applicant’s statements appear to contradict each other. One cannot assume aluminum is necessarily present as an adhesion/seed layer. More so, when the prior art is completely silent to aluminum and/or provides alternative materials to said metal. Further, as set for by applicant, such would have to be present in an “abundant” (or sufficient) amount in order to produce such spiking.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Filed on 03/20/2026, have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: 1. The Asserted Combination is Not Technically Correct and Lacks Support Under Relevant Patent Law.
Applicant argues that the substitution of aluminum is improper because aluminum serves as a p-type dopant necessary for forming structures such as Al-BSF, PERC or IBC solar cells, and that the removal of aluminum would render the device inoperable (citing In re Fritch).
Examiners response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The claims do not recite an Al-BSF structure, a PERC cell or an IBC structure, or any requirement that aluminum functions as a p-type dopant. Nor do the claims recite any specific mechanism by which the aluminum-silicon spikes are formed or require aluminum to perform any particular function.
The rejection relies on the presence or absence of aluminum in the structure as claimed, not on the specific semiconductor doping mechanism or cell architecture described by applicant. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments directed to the role of aluminum as a p-type dopant and its necessity for particular solar cell architectures are not persuasive. Furthermore, known p-type dopants other than aluminum are well stablished in the art, and Applicant has not demonstrated that the claimed invention requires aluminum to achieve operability.
Applicant further states that the removal of aluminum would render that the device inoperable because aluminum is necessary to form a backside field (BSF).
First, the claims do not require the presence of a BSF or any specific cell architecture. Second, even if a BSF were considered, it is well known in the art the p-type regions and BSFs may be formed using dopants other than aluminum, including via diffusion or implantation of dopants such as boron. Accordingly, aluminum is not required to achieve operability of a photovoltaic cell, and substitution of alternative materials would not render the device inoperable.
Applicant’s arguments improperly conflate the distinct roles of aluminum in photovoltaic cells. Specifically, applicant focuses on aluminum as a p-type dopant and its use for forming BSF structures. However, the present rejection is directed to aluminum-silicon eutectic spike formation arising from aluminum-containing contact structures. As described in the specification (e.g., paras. [0098], [0101], and [0105]), aluminum-silicon eutectic spikes form when aluminum is brough into contact with the silicon wafer and undergoes allowing during contact formation processes, such as firing of aluminum-containing contacts. This interaction produces eutectic grains that penetrate into the silicon and form spikes. Accordingly, spike formation is tied to the presence of aluminum in the contact material interfacing with the silicon, rather than to aluminum’s function as a dopant or its role for forming a BSF structure.
The rejection relies on the selection of contact materials that do not include aluminum, which eliminates the aluminum-silicon interaction responsible for the eutectic spike formation. The claims do not require the aluminum to function as a p-type dopant or to form a BSF structure.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding the dopant functionality of aluminum are not commensurate in scope with the claims and do not address the basis of the rejection.
Applicant’s argument: 2. No Recognition of a Result-Effective Variable in the Prior Art.
Applicant argues that the rejection premises the obviousness on the parameter "substantially free of aluminum-silicon eutectic spikes" being a result-effective variable that would predictably lead to the claimed result of no fracturing upon double bending and/or a biaxial curvature.
Applicant argues that Al is mentioned nowhere in Gochermann and, consequently, Gochermann does not supply such a nexus as the disclosure is silent as to Al and/or any suggestion that eliminating Al (or AISi eutectic spikes) would enable biaxial curvature without fracturing in thin silicon wafers.
Applicant argues that Girons disclosure directly implies AI-BSF or PERC cells, both of which incorporate alloyed Al backside electrodes and that Giron provides no motivation for Al-free solar cells nor cells without AISi eutectic spikes.
Applicant argues that Huang the non-aluminum materials are disclosed only in the context of alternative electrodes for conductivity enhancement (para. [0025]-[0030]), not for avoiding spikes or enabling double bending.
Examiners response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are premised on an incorrect characterization or the rejection. The rejection does not rely on a result-effective variable analysis, nor does it assert that elimination of aluminum-silicon eutectic spikes is selected to achieve improved bending or fracture resistance. Furthermore, Gochermann teaches flexible, doubly bent solar cells.
Rather the rejection is based on the selection of alternative contact materials, as taught by Huang. Huang discloses a finite number of identified, predictable conductive materials for contact layers, including non-aluminum metals. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to select from these known alternatives with reasonable expectation of success.
As described in the instant published specification, aluminum-silicon eutectic spikes form as a result of alloying between aluminum and silicon at the interface of the silicon waver during contact firing [paras. 0098, 0101 and 0105]. Accordingly, selection of a contact material that does not include aluminum (e.g., copper) at the silicon interface eliminates the aluminum-silicon interaction responsible for said eutectic spike formation, thereby resulting in a silicon wafer that is free of aluminum silicon eutectic spikes, as claimed.
The rejection does not rely on optimizing spike formation to achieve a desired result, but on the selection of known alternative contact materials.
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (see MPEP 2144).
The mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979).
Additionally, the fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding Gochermann, it is noted that applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the rejection.
Gochermann is relied upon for teaching a curved solar panel in which at leas one solar cell is bent along two orthogonal axes i.e., doubly bent configuration. Such disclosure corresponds to the claimed bending of the at least one solar cell.
To the extent that Gochermann does not recognize that the elimination of aluminum or eutectic spikes enables biaxial curvature without fracturing, such argument is not persuasive as the rejection does not rely on any such recognition or nexus. Rather, Gochermann independently teaches the doubly bend configuration, while remaining limitations are taught or suggested by the other applied references.
Furthermore, the claims do not require that the biaxial curvature result from the elimination of Al/Si eutectic spikes. Even if they did set forth such a requirement, as set forth above, the selection of a contact material that does not include aluminum (e.g., copper) at the silicon interface eliminates the aluminum-silicon interaction responsible for said eutectic spike formation, thereby resulting in a silicon wafer that is free of aluminum silicon eutectic spikes, as claimed.
Regarding Giron, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the rejection. Giron is cited for its teaching regarding mono- or polycrystalline silicon solar cells having a thickness within the claimed range to provide flexibility.
Giron is not relied upon for any teaching regarding contact metallization or the presence or absence of aluminum. Thus, Applicant’s arguments directed to whether Giron discloses aluminum do not address the actual basis for which Giron was cited. Moreover, Giron discloses alternative contact materials to aluminum (see para. 0020), such that Giron does not require aluminum in all embodiments.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant’s arguments improperly attack the references individually, rather than addressing the rejection as a combination of teachings. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding Huang, the rejection does not rely on the reference for recognizing or solving spike formation or bending-related issues. Huang is relied upon for its teaching regarding alternative conductive materials suitable for contact layers.
The selection of a contact material that does not include aluminum (e.g., copper) at the silicon interface eliminates the aluminum-silicon interaction responsible for said eutectic spike formation, thereby resulting in a silicon wafer that is free of aluminum silicon eutectic spikes, as claimed.
It is not necessary that the prior art recognize the same problem addressed by Applicant or suggest that the invention is for the same purpose. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (see MPEP 2144)
The claimed limitation is satisfied as a direct consequence of selecting a known alternative contact material.
Applicant’s argument: 3. Gochermann Does Not Suggest or Claim Doubly Bent c-Si Solar Cells.
Applicant argues that Although Gochermann identifies two types of bending, one-dimensional and two-dimensional, and two types of solar cells, c-Si and a-Si, a POSITA knows that it does not logically or necessarily follow that there is an all-to-all correspondence between the cell types and bending types as averred in the Examiner's position inferring the all-to-all relationship of the reference in the rejection of Applicant's claims.
Applicant argues that a POSITA's common knowledge suggests that c-Si cells are restricted to single axis bending.
Applicant argues that one skilled in the art would understand and know the significant difference in the material properties between a-Si and c-Si solar cells.
Applicant argues that given the differences in characteristics enumerated above, it would be unreasonable to expect that both c-Si and a-Si would be suitable for both single and double bending and that it would be far more reasonable for one skilled in the art to interpret the phrase "some one-dimensionally bent solar cells" as applying primarily to c-Si solar cells and "some two-dimensionally bent solar cells" as applying strictly to a-Si solar cells.
Applicant maintains that the skilled artisan would interpret Gochermann as teaching only singly bent c-Si solar cells while reserving the doubly bent description exclusively for a-Si solar cells.
Examiners response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gochermann expressly discloses “a curved laminate of some one-dimensionally bent solar cells and some two-dimensionally bent solar cells,” without restricting either bending type to a particular material. The reference does not exclude bending of crystalline silicon solar cells in two dimensions. Furthermore, Gochermann discloses that different types of solar cells may be employed interchangeably, stating that “if amorphous silicon solar cells are employed, substrate 7 may be omitted.” This disclosure further demonstrates that the reference does not impose a rigid relationship between the solar cell type and structural configuration, and does not support applicant’s assertion that particular bending modes are limited to specific cell materials. Moreover, Giron shows a thickness range that will maintain flexibility of the panel when using polycrystalline silicon solar cells.
Applicant’s argument that one-dimensional bending corresponds only to c-Si solar cells and two-dimensional bending corresponds exclusively to a-Si solar cells constitutes unsupported attorney arguments and is not evidence. No objective evidence has been provided demonstrating that c-Si solar cells are incapable of such bending alleged.
Applicant’s repeated reliance on alleged “common knowledge” or “common sense” regarding mechanical properties of crystalline silicon solar cells is not persuasive. Such assertions are unsupported by any cited evidence and therefore constitute mere attorney argument, which is not evidence. In the absence of objective evidence, these assertions cannot be relied upon to establish that c-Si solar cells are incapable of two-dimensional bending or to limit the teachings of the applied references.
Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965).
Applicant’s suggestion that Gochermann should be read as if amended to include language such as “depending on which type of cell is employed” is not persuasive. Prior art must be considered for what it reasonably teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art, not base on Applicant’s proposed modifications to the reference. The proposed language is not present in Gochermann and constitutes an improper attempt to read limitations that do not exist into the reference.
Applicant’s reliance on a translated version of a corresponding foreign application is not persuasive. The applied reference must be evaluated based on what it reasonably teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art. Even assuming, arguendo, that Applicant’s translation is accurate, the disclosure does not impose a strict correspondence between the bending type and the material composition.
Moreover, the rejection is based on a combination of references, not on Gochermann alone. Attacking Gochermann individually does not address the teachings of the cited combination as a whole.
Applicant’s statement that “it is apparent that, unfortunately, decades of researchers, inventors and patent examiners alike have been misled by a poor English translation of an originally German language disclosure” is speculative and not supported by any evidence of record. The present examination is based on the teachings of the applied references as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, not unsupported generalizations regarding the understanding of others.
Applicant’s argument: Comments on Response to Arguments
Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments but they are not persuasive. To the extent Applicant reiterates arguments previously presented (see Page *** above), such arguments have been addressed above and are incorporated herein by reference.
Applicant’s additional assertions regarding the role of aluminum in various solar cell structures including IBC, PERC and Al-BSF cells, are not persuasive because they are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The claims do not recite an Al-BSF structure, a PERC cell or an IBC structure, or any requirement that aluminum functions as a p-type dopant. Nor do the claims recite any specific mechanism by which the aluminum-silicon spikes are formed or require aluminum to perform any particular function.
The rejection is based on the selection of alternative contact materials, as taught by Huang. Huang discloses a finite number of identified, predictable conductive materials suitable for contact layers, including non-aluminum metals. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to select from these known alternatives with reasonable expectation of success.
As described in the instant published specification, aluminum-silicon eutectic spikes form as a result of alloying between aluminum and silicon at the interface of the silicon waver during contact firing [paras. 0098, 0101 and 0105]. Accordingly, selection of a contact material that does not include aluminum (e.g., copper) at the silicon interface eliminates the aluminum-silicon interaction responsible for said eutectic spike formation, thereby resulting in a silicon wafer that is free of aluminum silicon eutectic spikes, as claimed.
The fact that aluminum may function as a p-type dopant is irrelevant in the instant rejection because the claims do not require the formation of an Al-BSF nor do they require PERC solar cells.
Applicant’s argument: Rejection due to Double Patenting
Applicant argues that the present case is a continuation-in-part and that claims 1-17 are substantially different than co-pending App. No. 18/169,576, rendering the provisional double patenting rejection at this time moot.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The fact that one application is a continuation-in-part (CIP) does not obviate an nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection (ODP).
The test for ODP is whether the claims of the instant application are patentably distinct from the claims in the copending application i.e., whether the instant claims would have been obvious over the claims of the copending application in view of the prior art. When comparing the claims, the claims of copending Application No. 18/169,576 include all of the structural limitations of the instant claims except for the limitation requiring a silicon wafer “being free of aluminum-silicon eutectic spikes.”
However, as set forth above, the absence of aluminum-silicon eutectic spikes would have been obvious in view of Kaule. Accordingly, the claims are not patentably distinct.
The use of a secondary reference to demonstrate obviousness of differing limitations is proper in an obviousness-type double patenting analysis and does not render the rejection moot. Therefore, the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - 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, 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721