DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action for 18/817,582, filed 8/24/2024, which is a continuation of 17/960,545, filed 10/25/2022, which is a continuation of 16/650,384, filed 9/4/2019, which is a continuation of 15/443,331, filed 2/27/2017, which is a continuation of 13/182,203, filed 7/13/2011, which claims priority to Korean Application KR10-2011-0005429, filed 1/19/2011.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-34 are pending; Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-19 are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments filed 2/11/2026, the objection to Claim 3 is withdrawn, the rejection of Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) is withdrawn, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn, and the double patenting rejections and prior art rejections are modified as necessitated by amendments to the claims.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0037815 A1: This reference teaches a bifacial buried contact solar cell (Fig. 1).
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 1-6, 12, 14 and 17-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,133, in view of Abbott, et al. ("N-Type Bifacial Solar Cells with Laser Doped Contacts," 2006 IEEE 4th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conference, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 2006, pp. 988-991). Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,133 teach all of the limitations of instant Claims 1-4, 6, 12, 14 and 17-19, except for the recitation that “the plurality of back surface field layers are spaced from each other by the n-type substrate such that the n-type substrate is located between the plurality of back surface field layers along a direction parallel to the back surface wherein each of the plurality of first electrodes includes: a metal seed layer and a conductive layer plated on the metal seed layer” in Claim 1.
To solve the same problem of providing a bifacial solar cell, Fig. 1 of Abbott teaches a bifacial solar cell in which a plurality of back surface field layers are spaced from each other by its n-type substrate such that the n-type substrate is located between the plurality of back surface field layers along a direction parallel to the back surface. Specifically, Fig. 1 teaches that the back surface layers are discontinuously positioned on the rear surface of the solar cell, and that the n-type substrate is disposed laterally between adjacent back surface field layers.
Abbott further teaches that each of the plurality of first electrodes includes: a metal seed layer (i.e. a nickel seed layer); and a conductive layer plated on the metal seed layer (i.e. a copper layer plated on the seed layer) (paragraph 2, column 1, page 989).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the back surface field layers and the plurality of first electrodes of Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,133 like their counterparts in Abbott, because Abbott’s disclosure teaches that these are suitable forms for these structures.
Claims 1-4, 6, 12, and 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,446,697 in view of Abbott, et al. ("N-Type Bifacial Solar Cells with Laser Doped Contacts," 2006 IEEE 4th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conference, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 2006, pp. 988-991). Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,446,697 teach all of the limitations of instant Claims 1-4, 6, 12, 14 and 14-19, except for the recitation that “the plurality of back surface field layers are spaced from each other by the n-type substrate such that the n-type substrate is located between the plurality of back surface field layers along a direction parallel to the back surface wherein each of the plurality of first electrodes includes: a metal seed layer and a conductive layer plated on the metal seed layer” in Claim 1.
To solve the same problem of providing a bifacial solar cell, Fig. 1 of Abbott teaches a bifacial solar cell in which a plurality of back surface field layers are spaced from each other by its n-type substrate such that the n-type substrate is located between the plurality of back surface field layers along a direction parallel to the back surface. Specifically, Fig. 1 teaches that the back surface layers are discontinuously positioned on the rear surface of the solar cell, and that the n-type substrate is disposed laterally between adjacent back surface field layers.
Abbott further teaches that each of the plurality of first electrodes includes: a metal seed layer (i.e. a nickel seed layer); and a conductive layer plated on the metal seed layer (i.e. a copper layer plated on the seed layer) (paragraph 2, column 1, page 989).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the back surface field layers and the plurality of first electrodes of Claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,446,697 like their counterparts in Abbott, because Abbott’s disclosure teaches that these are suitable forms for these structures.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 12-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,538,945 in view of Abbott, et al. ("N-Type Bifacial Solar Cells with Laser Doped Contacts," 2006 IEEE 4th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conference, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 2006, pp. 988-991). Claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,538,945 teach all of the limitations of instant Claims 1-4, 6, and 12-19, except for the recitation that “the plurality of back surface field layers are spaced from each other by the n-type substrate such that the n-type substrate is located between the plurality of back surface field layers along a direction parallel to the back surface wherein each of the plurality of first electrodes includes: a metal seed layer and a conductive layer plated on the metal seed layer” in Claim 1.
To solve the same problem of providing a bifacial solar cell, Fig. 1 of Abbott teaches a bifacial solar cell in which a plurality of back surface field layers are spaced from each other by its n-type substrate such that the n-type substrate is located between the plurality of back surface field layers along a direction parallel to the back surface. Specifically, Fig. 1 teaches that the back surface layers are discontinuously positioned on the rear surface of the solar cell, and that the n-type substrate is disposed laterally between adjacent back surface field layers.
Abbott further teaches that each of the plurality of first electrodes includes: a metal seed layer (i.e. a nickel seed layer); and a conductive layer plated on the metal seed layer (i.e. a copper layer plated on the seed layer) (paragraph 2, column 1, page 989).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the back surface field layers and the plurality of first electrodes of Claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,538,945 like their counterparts in Abbott, because Abbott’s disclosure teaches that these are suitable forms for these structures.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 12-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,402,436 in view of Abbott, et al. ("N-Type Bifacial Solar Cells with Laser Doped Contacts," 2006 IEEE 4th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conference, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 2006, pp. 988-991). Claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,402,436 teach all of the limitations of instant Claims 1-4, 6, and 12-16, except for the recitation that “the plurality of back surface field layers are spaced from each other by the n-type substrate such that the n-type substrate is located between the plurality of back surface field layers along a direction parallel to the back surface wherein each of the plurality of first electrodes includes: a metal seed layer and a conductive layer plated on the metal seed layer” in Claim 1.
To solve the same problem of providing a bifacial solar cell, Fig. 1 of Abbott teaches a bifacial solar cell in which a plurality of back surface field layers are spaced from each other by its n-type substrate such that the n-type substrate is located between the plurality of back surface field layers along a direction parallel to the back surface. Specifically, Fig. 1 teaches that the back surface layers are discontinuously positioned on the rear surface of the solar cell, and that the n-type substrate is disposed laterally between adjacent back surface field layers.
Abbott further teaches that each of the plurality of first electrodes includes: a metal seed layer (i.e. a nickel seed layer); and a conductive layer plated on the metal seed layer (i.e. a copper layer plated on the seed layer) (paragraph 2, column 1, page 989).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the back surface field layers and the plurality of first electrodes of Claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,402,436 like their counterparts in Abbott, because Abbott’s disclosure teaches that these are suitable forms for these structures.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,056,598 in view of Abbott, et al. ("N-Type Bifacial Solar Cells with Laser Doped Contacts," 2006 IEEE 4th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conference, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 2006, pp. 988-991). Claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,056,598 teach all of the limitations of instant Claims 1-2, except for the recitation that “the plurality of back surface field layers are spaced from each other by the n-type substrate such that the n-type substrate is located between the plurality of back surface field layers along a direction parallel to the back surface wherein each of the plurality of first electrodes includes: a metal seed layer and a conductive layer plated on the metal seed layer” in Claim 1.
To solve the same problem of providing a bifacial solar cell, Fig. 1 of Abbott teaches a bifacial solar cell in which a plurality of back surface field layers are spaced from each other by its n-type substrate such that the n-type substrate is located between the plurality of back surface field layers along a direction parallel to the back surface. Specifically, Fig. 1 teaches that the back surface layers are discontinuously positioned on the rear surface of the solar cell, and that the n-type substrate is disposed laterally between adjacent back surface field layers.
Abbott further teaches that each of the plurality of first electrodes includes: a metal seed layer (i.e. a nickel seed layer); and a conductive layer plated on the metal seed layer (i.e. a copper layer plated on the seed layer) (paragraph 2, column 1, page 989).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the back surface field layers and the plurality of first electrodes of Claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,056,598 like their counterparts in Abbott, because Abbott’s disclosure teaches that these are suitable forms for these structures.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,298 in view of Abbott, et al. ("N-Type Bifacial Solar Cells with Laser Doped Contacts," 2006 IEEE 4th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conference, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 2006, pp. 988-991). Claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,298 teach all of the limitations of instant Claims 1-2, except for the recitation that “the plurality of back surface field layers are spaced from each other by the n-type substrate such that the n-type substrate is located between the plurality of back surface field layers along a direction parallel to the back surface wherein each of the plurality of first electrodes includes: a metal seed layer and a conductive layer plated on the metal seed layer” in Claim 1.
To solve the same problem of providing a bifacial solar cell, Fig. 1 of Abbott teaches a bifacial solar cell in which a plurality of back surface field layers are spaced from each other by its n-type substrate such that the n-type substrate is located between the plurality of back surface field layers along a direction parallel to the back surface. Specifically, Fig. 1 teaches that the back surface layers are discontinuously positioned on the rear surface of the solar cell, and that the n-type substrate is disposed laterally between adjacent back surface field layers.
Abbott further teaches that each of the plurality of first electrodes includes: a metal seed layer (i.e. a nickel seed layer); and a conductive layer plated on the metal seed layer (i.e. a copper layer plated on the seed layer) (paragraph 2, column 1, page 989).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the back surface field layers and the plurality of first electrodes of Claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,298 like their counterparts in Abbott, because Abbott’s disclosure teaches that these are suitable forms for these structures.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 10, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abbott, et al. ("N-Type Bifacial Solar Cells with Laser Doped Contacts," 2006 IEEE 4th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conference, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 2006, pp. 988-991).
In reference to Claim 1, Abbott teaches a bifacial solar cell (Fig. 1, “Experiment” section, pages 988-989).
The solar cell of Abbott comprises an n-type substrate having a front surface and a back surface (Fig. 1, paragraph 1, column 1, page 989).
The solar cell of Abbott comprises a p-type emitter layer positioned at the front surface of the n-type substrate and forming a p- n junction along with the n-type substrate (Fig. 1, paragraph 1, column 1, page 989).
The solar cell of Abbott comprises a plurality of first electrodes partially positioned on a surface the p-type emitter layer away from the n-type substrate and electrically connected to the p-type emitter layer (Fig. 1, paragraph 2, column 1, page 989).
The solar cell of Abbott comprises a plurality of back surface field layers (i.e. the n++ laser doped contacts) discontinuously positioned at the back surface of the n-type substrate (Fig. 1, paragraph 1, column 1, page 989).
The solar cell of Abbott comprises a plurality of second electrodes respectively positioned on surfaces of the plurality of back surface field layers away from the n-type substrate and electrically connected to the plurality of back surface field layers (Fig. 1, paragraph 2, column 1, page 989).
Fig. 1 teaches that each of the plurality of back surface field layers is an n-type region that is more heavily doped than the n-type substrate.
Fig. 1 teaches that the plurality of back surface field layers are spaced from each other by the n-type substrate such that the n-type substrate is located between the plurality of back surface field layers along a direction parallel to the back surface. Specifically, Fig. 1 teaches that the laser-diffused n++ back surface layers are discontinuously positioned on the rear surface of the solar cell, and that the n-type substrate is disposed laterally between adjacent back surface field layers.
Abbott teaches that each of the plurality of first electrodes includes: a metal seed layer (i.e. a nickel seed layer); and a conductive layer plated on the metal seed layer (i.e. a copper layer plated on the seed layer) (paragraph 2, column 1, page 989).
In reference to Claim 2, Fig. 1 teaches that the p-type emitter layer includes: a first doped region doped with impurities of the p-type (corresponding to the p+-type emitter regions); and a plurality of second doped regions, each of the plurality of the second doped regions being more heavily doped than the first doped region with impurities of the p-type (corresponding to the p++-type laser doped contacts (paragraph 1, column 1, page 989).
In reference to Claim 3, Fig. 1 teaches that the number of the plurality of second doped regions is the same as the number of the plurality of first electrodes, and each of the plurality of first electrodes is disposed on a respective one of the plurality of second doped regions.
In reference to Claim 10, Abbott teaches that each of the plurality of second electrodes includes: a metal seed layer (i.e. a nickel seed layer); and a conductive layer plated on the metal seed layer (i.e. a copper layer plated on the seed layer) (paragraph 2, column 1, page 989).
In reference to Claim 12, Abbott teaches that the solar cell of his invention comprises a 120 nm-thick silicon oxide layer on the front p-type emitter. Abbott further teaches that this layer functions as both a passivation layer and an antireflection layer (paragraph 2, column 1, page 989).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 12, wherein the cell further comprises a first protective layer positioned on the surface of the p-type emitter layer away from the n- type substrate (corresponding to the portion of the silicon oxide layer closest to the emitter); and a first anti-reflection layer positioned on a surface of the first protective layer away from the p-type emitter layer (corresponding to the portion of the silicon oxide layer furthest from the emitter).
In reference to Claim 13, Abbott teaches that the solar cell of his invention comprises a 120 nm-thick silicon oxide layer on the front p-type emitter. Abbott further teaches that this layer functions as both a passivation layer and an antireflection layer (Fig. 1, paragraph 2, column 1, page 989).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 13, wherein the cell further comprises a first silicon oxide layer (corresponding to the portion of the silicon oxide layer closest to the emitter) formed between the first protective layer (corresponding to the portion of the silicon oxide layer furthest from the emitter) and the emitter layer.
In reference to Claim 14, Abbott teaches that the solar cell of his invention comprises a 120 nm-thick silicon oxide layer on the rear BSF layer. Abbott further teaches that this layer functions as both a passivation layer and an antireflection layer (Fig. 1, paragraph 2, column 1, page 989).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 14, wherein the cell comprises a second protective layer positioned on the back surface of the n-type substrate (corresponding to the portion of the rear silicon oxide layer closest to the back surface field layer); and a second anti-reflection layer positioned on a surface of the second protective layer away from the n-type substrate (corresponding to the portion of the rear silicon oxide layer furthest from the back surface field layer).
In reference to Claim 15, Fig. 1 teaches that the second protective layer (corresponding to the portion of the rear silicon oxide layer closest to the back surface field layer) and the plurality of back surface field layers are not overlapping each other (not vertically overlapping each other).
In reference to Claim 16, Fig. 1 teaches that a width of one of the plurality of back surface field layers is equal to or less than a width of one of the plurality of second electrodes.
In reference to Claim 17, Fig. 1 teaches that each of the plurality of second electrodes protrudes through a hole in the second protective layer (which corresponds to the portion of the rear silicon oxide layer closest to the back surface field layer).
This is further described in paragraph 1, column 2, page 988.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott, et al. ("N-Type Bifacial Solar Cells with Laser Doped Contacts," 2006 IEEE 4th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conference, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 2006, pp. 988-991).
In reference to Claim 4, Abbott teaches that the first doped region has a surface resistivity of about 80 /sq to 200 Q/sq (i.e. 100 Q/sq, paragraph 1, column 1, page 989).
Abbott does not explicitly report the surface resistivity of the second doped regions. Therefore, he does not explicitly teach that each of the second doped regions has a surface resistivity of about 30 Q/sq to 80 Q/sq.
However, he teaches that the concentration of dopants in the laser-doped contact regions (i.e. the “second doped region” of the claims) controls the current density, efficiency, Voc, Jsc, and FF of the solar cell (Tables 1-2), all of which improve with increased doping. Fig. 6 further teaches that increased doping of the laser-fired, highly-doped contact regions increases the dark current of a cell.
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have been motivated to optimize the doping concentration of the laser doped contacts of the device of Abbott, in order to balance recombination, current density, efficiency, Voc, Jsc, and FF, as well as processing time and materials. It is further the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a structure resulting in the properties recited in Claim 4, without undue experimentation.
In reference to Claim 6, Abbot teaches that the lower-doped back surface field region has a resistivity of 100 Q/sq (paragraph 1, column 1, page 989).
This disclosure does not teach the limitations of Claim 6.
However, Fig. 1 of Abbott further teaches that the back surface field layer comprises additional, higher-doped regions.
Abbott does not explicitly report the surface resistivity of these more highly-doped back surface field regions. Therefore, he does not explicitly teach that the back surface field layer has a surface resistivity of about 30 Q/sq to 80 Q/sq.
However, he teaches that the concentration of dopants in the laser-doped contact regions (i.e. the “back surface field layer” of the claims) controls the current density, efficiency, Voc, Jsc, and FF of the solar cell (Tables 1-2), all of which improve with increased doping. Fig. 6 further teaches that increased doping of the laser-fired, highly-doped contact regions increases the dark current of a cell.
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have been motivated to optimize the doping concentration of the laser doped contacts of the device of Abbott, in order to balance recombination, current density, efficiency, Voc, Jsc, and FF, as well as processing time and materials. It is further the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a structure resulting in the properties recited in Claim 6, without undue experimentation.
Claims 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott, et al. ("N-Type Bifacial Solar Cells with Laser Doped Contacts," 2006 IEEE 4th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conference, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 2006, pp. 988-991), in view of Fork, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0107773 A1).
In reference to Claim 8, Abbott does not teach that each of the plurality of first electrodes further includes: a diffusion prevention layer positioned between the metal seed layer and the conductive layer.
To solve the same problem of electroplating a copper electrode onto a silicon solar cell, Fork teaches using nickel silicide as a seed layer for the electroplating of a copper electrode (paragraphs [0062]-[0063]).
Fork further teaches that nickel silicide provides the benefit of acting as a diffusion barrier to prevent the silicon substrate from being contaminated with copper from the plated copper electrode (paragraph [0063]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used nickel silicide as both the seed layer and a diffusion barrier in each of the electrodes of the device of Abbott, because Fork teaches that nickel silicide provides the benefit of acting as a diffusion barrier to prevent an underlying silicon substrate from being contaminated with copper from a plated copper electrode (paragraph [0063]).
Using nickel silicide as both the seed layer and a diffusion barrier in each of the electrodes of the device of Abbott teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein each of the plurality of first electrodes further includes: a diffusion prevention layer (corresponding to the region of nickel silicide positioned closest to the copper layer) positioned between the metal seed layer (corresponding to the portion of nickel silicide positioned furthest from the copper layer) and the conductive layer.
In reference to Claim 9, Abbott teaches that the conductive layer includes copper (paragraph 2, column 1, page 989).
Abbott does not teach that the metal seed layer is formed of nickel silicide or aluminum silicide.
To solve the same problem of electroplating a copper electrode onto a silicon solar cell, Fork teaches using nickel silicide as a seed layer for the electroplating of a copper electrode (paragraphs [0062]-[0063]).
Fork further teaches that nickel silicide provides the benefit of acting as a diffusion barrier to prevent the silicon substrate from being contaminated with copper from the plated copper electrode (paragraph [0063]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used nickel silicide as the seed layer each of the electrodes of the device of Abbott, because Fork teaches that nickel silicide provides the benefit of acting as a diffusion barrier to prevent an underlying silicon substrate from being contaminated with copper from a plated copper electrode (paragraph [0063]).
Using nickel silicide as the seed layer in each of the electrodes of the device of Abbott teaches the limitations of Claim 9, wherein the metal seed layer of each of the plurality of first electrodes is formed of nickel silicide.
In reference to Claim 11, Abbott does not teach that each of the plurality of second electrodes further includes: a diffusion prevention layer positioned between the metal seed layer and the conductive layer.
To solve the same problem of electroplating a copper electrode onto a silicon solar cell, Fork teaches using nickel silicide as a seed layer for the electroplating of a copper electrode (paragraphs [0062]-[0063]).
Fork further teaches that nickel silicide provides the benefit of acting as a diffusion barrier to prevent the silicon substrate from being contaminated with copper from the plated copper electrode (paragraph [0063]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used nickel silicide as both the seed layer and a diffusion barrier in each of the electrodes of the device of Abbott, because Fork teaches that nickel silicide provides the benefit of acting as a diffusion barrier to prevent an underlying silicon substrate from being contaminated with copper from a plated copper electrode (paragraph [0063]).
Using nickel silicide as both the seed layer and a diffusion barrier in each of the electrodes of the device of Abbott teaches the limitations of Claim 11, wherein each of the plurality of second electrodes further includes: a diffusion prevention layer (corresponding to the region of nickel silicide positioned closest to the copper layer) positioned between the metal seed layer (corresponding to the portion of nickel silicide positioned furthest from the copper layer) and the conductive layer.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott, et al. ("N-Type Bifacial Solar Cells with Laser Doped Contacts," 2006 IEEE 4th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conference, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 2006, pp. 988-991), in view of Sun (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0240170 A1).
In reference to Claim 18, because the “first protective layer” of Abbott corresponds to the inner region of the silicon oxide layer on the top surface of the device (of an arbitrary thickness below the thickness of the 120nm thick top silicon oxide layer) and because the “second protective layer” of Abbott corresponds to the inner region of the silicon oxide layer on the bottom surface of the device (of an arbitrary thickness below the thickness of the 120nm thick silicon oxide layer), it is the Examiner’s position that these two layers can be interpreted as having the same thickness.
However, Abbott does not teach that the first protective layer and the second protective layer are made of aluminum oxide.
To solve the same problem of providing a silicon solar cell, Sun teaches that both silicon oxide and aluminum oxide are suitable for use as passivation and antireflection layers on the front and rear surfaces of a silicon solar cell (paragraphs [0020], [0024], and Sun, Claim 12).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the front and rear silicon oxide layers of the device of Abbott from aluminum oxide, based on the disclosure of Sun.
Forming the front and rear silicon oxide layers of the device of Abbott from aluminum oxide teaches the limitations of Claim 18, wherein the first protective layer and the second protective layer are made of aluminum oxide and have a same thickness.
In reference to Claim 19, Abbott does not teach that at least one of the first anti- reflection layer and the second anti-reflection layer contains silicon nitride.
Instead, as described above, the front and rear passivation/protection/antireflective layers are formed of silicon oxide.
To solve the same problem of providing a silicon solar cell, Sun teaches that both silicon oxide and silicon nitride are suitable for use as passivation and antireflection layers on the front and rear surfaces of a silicon solar cell (paragraphs [0020], [0024], and Sun, Claim 12).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the front and rear silicon oxide layers of the device of Abbott from aluminum oxide, based on the disclosure of Sun.
Forming the front and rear silicon oxide layers of the device of Abbott from aluminum oxide teaches the limitations of Claim 19, wherein at least one of the first anti- reflection layer and the second anti-reflection layer contains silicon nitride.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim objection and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and (d) have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
The arguments regarding the double patenting rejections are not persuasive. These rejections have been modified as necessitated by amendments to the claims.
The Applicant argues on page 11 of the response that the Examiner states that the p++ laser contacts correspond to the back surface field layers. This is not the Examiner’s position. Instead, the Examiner states that the n++ laser doped contacts correspond to the plurality of back surface field layers, formed by laser diffusion of phosphorus to create highly-doped n++ regions in the back surface, in addition to the global n+-type doping of the rear surface of the substrate (column 1, paragraph 1, page 989) as follows:
The solar cell of Abbott comprises a plurality of back surface field layers (i.e. the n++ laser doped contacts) discontinuously positioned at the back surface of the n-type substrate (Fig. 1, paragraph 1, column 1, page 989).
The solar cell of Abbott comprises a plurality of second electrodes respectively positioned on surfaces of the plurality of back surface field layers away from the n-type substrate and electrically connected to the plurality of back surface field layers (Fig. 1, paragraph 2, column 1, page 989).
Fig. 1 teaches that each of the plurality of back surface field layers is an n-type region that is more heavily doped than the n-type substrate.
Fig. 1 teaches that the plurality of back surface field layers are spaced from each other by the n-type substrate such that the n-type substrate is located between the plurality of back surface field layers along a direction parallel to the back surface. Specifically, Fig. 1 teaches that the back surface layers are discontinuously positioned on the rear surface of the solar cell, and that the n-type substrate is disposed laterally between adjacent back surface field layers.
Abbott teaches that each of the plurality of first electrodes includes: a metal seed layer (i.e. a nickel seed layer); and a conductive layer plated on the metal seed layer (i.e. a copper layer plated on the seed layer) (paragraph 2, column 1, page 989).
The Examiner notes that instant claim 1 does not preclude the existence of an n+-type layer between the plurality of n++ back surface field layers.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights