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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the status identifiers for claims 3 and 20 indicate the claims are withdrawn, however, the claims submitted on 07/02/2025 indicate that the claims are previously presented and currently amended, respectively, and the Remarks filed do not provide a reason for the indication of claims 3 and 20 as withdrawn, therefore, it is unclear as to whether the indication of claims 3 and 20 as withdrawn is inadvertent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, lines 1 and 2 of claim 13 recite “a first convex of the first convex structure and a second convex of the second convex structure,” however, it is unclear as to whether the first convex and second convex of claim 13 are referring to the previously recited first convex and second convex of claim 1, from which claim 13 depends, or whether the first convex and second convex recited in claim 13 are in addition to the previously recited first and second convex of claim 1. Claim 14 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 13.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, lines 3 and 4 of claim 13 recite “a top portion away from the semiconductor substrate and a bottom portion close to the semiconductor substrate,” however, the manner in which a first and/or second convex of the first and/or second convex structures, or structures comprised by the first and/or second convex structures, can have a top portion away from the semiconductor substrate is unclear because the first and/or second convex structures, and any structures comprised by the first and/or second convex structures, are a surface of the semiconductor substrate based on the limitations recited in clam 1. Similarly, the manner in which a first and/or second convex of the first and/or second convex structures, or structures comprised by the first and/or second convex structures, can have a bottom portion close to the semiconductor substrate is unclear because the first and/or second convex structures, and any structures comprised by the first and/or second convex structures, are a surface of the semiconductor substrate based on the limitations recited in clam 1. The manner in which a surface of a semiconductor substrate can have both a top portion away from the semiconductor substrate and a bottom portion close to the semiconductor substrate is unclear. The second surface of a substrate has only one surface. Claim 14 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 13.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, claim 15 recites the limitation "the surface of the isolation region" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 19-22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi Electric Corp (WO 2013/125036) in view of Hirose et al. (US 2013/0102107).
Regarding claim 1, Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses a back-contact solar cell (Fig. 7-14) comprising: a semiconductor substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (101 in Fig. 7-14), wherein the second surface comprises a first region and a second region arranged in a direction of the second surface (shown in annotated Fig. 7-14 below), and an isolation region between the first region and the second region (any region of the second surface of the substrate between the first region and the second region depicted in annotated Fig. 7-14 below), wherein a surface of the first region has a first convex structure (convex structure of 101 in first regions in annotated Fig. 7-14 below), and a surface of the second region has a second convex structure (convex structure of 101 in second regions in annotated Fig. 7-14 below), wherein a morphology of the first convex structure is different from a morphology of the second convex structure (surface of 101 in first and second regions in annotated Fig. 7-14 below); a first doped semiconductor layer, formed on the first region, wherein the first doped semiconductor layer is on the first convex structure (102 in annotated Fig. 7-14 below); and a second doped semiconductor layer, formed on the second region, wherein the second doped semiconductor layer is on the second convex structure (104 in annotated Fig. 7-14 below), wherein a conductivity type of the second doped semiconductor layer is opposite to a conductivity type of the first doped semiconductor layer (abstract), wherein a side length of a first convex of the first convex structure is less than a side length of a second convex structure (side length of convex structure of substrate under 111 in relation to side length of convex structure under 121 in Fig. 9); a first electrode on the first doped semiconductor layer (111 on 102 in Fig. 7-14; it is noted that the limitation “on” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components); and a second electrode on the second doped semiconductor layer (121 on 104 in Fig. 7-14; it is noted that the limitation “on” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components), wherein the first electrode and the second electrode comprise a conductive material (abstract).
Mitsubishi Electric Corp does not explicitly disclose a doping concentration of the first doped semiconductor layer is lower than a doping concentration of the second doped semiconductor layer.
Hirose discloses a back-contact solar cell (Fig. 10B) and further discloses a doping concentration of a first doped semiconductor layer is lower than a doping concentration of a second doped semiconductor layer ([0112] discloses second region 312 is a back surface field and with an n+ or p+ dopant concentration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the second doped semiconductor layer of Mitsubishi Electric Corp with a higher concentration than the first doped semiconductor layer, as disclosed in Hirose, because as taught by Hirose, minority carriers are repelled by the electric field of the n-n+ or p-p+ junction and attracted to the p-n junction side, whereby recombination of carriers in the vicinity of the second electrode can be prevented ([0112]).
[AltContent: textbox (first grooves)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second regions)][AltContent: textbox (first regions ( ()]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (side length)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (surface of
second region)][AltContent: textbox (surface of
first region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (surface of isolation region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
239
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (second grooves regions)]
Regarding claim 2, modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp further discloses the second surface comprises more than one first region and more than one second region alternatively arranged along the direction of the second surface (Mitsubishi Electric Corp - shown in annotated Fig. 7-14 above).
Regarding claim 3, modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp further discloses the surface of the first region is provided with first grooves recessed toward the semiconductor substrate (Mitsubishi Electric Corp - shown in annotated Fig. 7-14), wherein the first convex structure is located in a grid region surrounded by the first grooves (Mitsubishi Electric Corp - the convex structures in the first regions are surrounded by the first grooves depicted in annotated Fig. 7-14 above), and wherein the surface of the second region is provided with second grooves recessed toward the semiconductor substrate (Mitsubishi Electric Corp - shown in annotated Fig. 7-14), wherein the second convex structure is located in a grid region surrounded by the second grooves (Mitsubishi Electric Corp - the convex structure in the second regions are surrounded by the second grooves depicted in annotated Fig. 7-14 above).
With regard to the limitation “encircled,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first grooves and the second grooves such that they encircle respective regions which contain the first and second convex structures because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
It is noted that the limitation “a grid region” does not specify the characteristics required, therefore, the structure in the regions surrounded by the first and second grooves, respectively, depicted in annotated Fig. 7-14 above satisfies the limitation “a grid region.”
Regarding claim 5, modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp further discloses a surface of the first convex structure facing away from the semiconductor substrate is in a shape of a first polygon (Mitsubishi Electric Corp - convex structure under 111 in Fig. 9), wherein a surface of the second convex structure facing away from the semiconductor substrate is in a shape of a second polygon (Mitsubishi Electric Corp - convex structure under 121 in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 6, modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp further discloses a side length of a first polygon of the one or more first polygons is different from a side length of a second polygon of the one or more second polygons (Mitsubishi Electric Corp - side length of convex structure of substrate under 111 in relation to side length of convex structure of substrate under 121 in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 8, modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp does not explicitly disclose the side length of the first polygon ranges from 0.5 to 20 microns, the side length of the second polygon ranges from 10 to 50 microns, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the side length of the first convex structure of modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp within the range of 0.5 to 20 microns, and to form the side length of the second convex structure within the range of 10 to 50 microns, because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 19, modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp does disclose the first convex structure comprises a plurality of first convexes protruding away from the semiconductor substrate (Mitsubishi Electric Corp - structures in first region of substrate in annotated Fig. 7-14 above), modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp does not explicitly disclose the second convex structure comprises a plurality of second convexes protruding away from the semiconductor substrate.
Hirose discloses a back-contact solar cell (Fig. 10B) and further discloses a substrate with a second convex structure comprising a plurality of second convexes protruding away from the semiconductor substrate (surface of 300 below 311 in Fig. 10C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the second regions of the second surface of the substrate of modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp such that the second region of the substrate includes a second convex structure comprising a plurality of second convexes protruding away from the substrate, as disclosed by Hirose, because as taught by Hirose, a light trapping effect in which reflected light by the back surface is totally reflected at the surface can occur ([0109]).
Modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses a morphology of the first convex structure is different from the second convex structure (Hirose – surface of the substrate 300 below 312 in relation to the surface of the substrate 300 below 311 in Figures 10B and 10C of Hirose, and also in relation to the convex structures in the first region of the substrate of Mitsubishi Electric Corp in annotated Fig. 7-14 above).
Regarding claim 20, Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses a back-contact solar cell (Fig. 7-14) comprising: a semiconductor substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (101 in Fig. 7-14), wherein the second surface comprises a first region and a second region arranged in a direction of the second surface (shown in annotated Fig. 7-14 above), wherein a surface of the first region has a first convex structure (convex structure of 101 in first regions in annotated Fig. 7-14 above) having a plurality of first convexes protruding away from the semiconductor substrate (structures in the first region of the second surface of the substrate in annotated Fig. 7-14 above), and a surface of the second region has a second convex structure (convex structure of 101 in second regions in annotated Fig. 7-14 above); a first doped semiconductor layer, formed on the first region, wherein the first doped semiconductor layer is on the first convex structure (102 in annotated Fig. 7-14 above); and a second doped semiconductor layer, formed on the second region, wherein the second doped semiconductor layer is on the second convex structure (104 in annotated Fig. 7-14 above), wherein a conductivity type of the second doped semiconductor layer is opposite to a conductivity type of the first doped semiconductor (abstract); a first electrode on the first doped semiconductor layer (111 on 102 in Fig. 7-14; it is noted that the limitation “on” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components); and a second electrode on the second semiconductor layer (121 on 104 in Fig. 7-14; it is noted that the limitation “on” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components), wherein the first electrode and the second electrode comprise a conductive material (abstract).
While Mitsubishi Electric Corp does disclose a morphology of a convex of the first convex structure is different from a morphology of a convex of the second convex structure (surface of 101 in first and second regions in annotated Fig. 7-14 above), modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp does not explicitly disclose a surface of the second region has a second convex structure having a plurality of second convexes protruding away from the semiconductor substrate.
Hirose discloses a back-contact solar cell (Fig. 10B) and further discloses a substrate with a second convex structure comprising a plurality of second convexes protruding away from the semiconductor substrate (surface of 300 below 311 in Fig. 10C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the second regions of the second surface of the substrate of Mitsubishi Electric Corp such that the second region of the substrate includes a second convex structure comprising a plurality of second convexes protruding away from the substrate, as disclosed by Hirose, because as taught by Hirose, a light trapping effect in which reflected light by the back surface is totally reflected at the surface can occur ([0109]).
Modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses a morphology of a first convex of the first convex structure is different from a second convex of the second convex structure (Hirose – surface of the substrate 300 below 312 in relation to the surface of the substrate 300 below 311 in Figures 10B and 10C of Hirose, and also in relation to the convex structures in the first region of the substrate of Mitsubishi Electric Corp in annotated Fig. 7-14 above).
Regarding claim 21, modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp further discloses a morphology of a surface of the first doped semiconductor layer facing away from the semiconductor substrate is different from a morphology of the second doped semiconductor layer facing away from the semiconductor substrate (Mitsubishi Electric Corp – 102 in relation to 104 in Figure 7-14).
Regarding claim 22, modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “a surface of the second doped semiconductor layer facing away from the semiconductor substrate is closer to the semiconductor substrate than a surface of the first doped semiconductor layer facing away from the semiconductor substrate,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form a surface of the second doped semiconductor layer facing away from the semiconductor substrate such that it is closer to the semiconductor substrate than a surface of the first doped semiconductor layer facing away from the semiconductor substrate, because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 25, modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp further discloses a surface of the isolation region has a height difference relative to surfaces of the first region and the second region (Mitsubishi Electric Corp – shown in annotated Fig. 7-14 above).
Claims 4, 10, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi Electric Corp (WO 2013/125036) in view of Hirose et al. (US 2013/0102107) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, in view of Motoyoshi et al. (US 2012/0273036).
Regarding claim 4, modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses all the claim
limitations as set forth above.
Modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp does not explicitly disclose the first convex structure comprises a first pyramid base structure, and wherein the second convex structure comprises a second pyramid base structure.
Motoyoshi discloses a back-contact solar cell (Fig. 13C) and further discloses first and second convex structures comprising first and second pyramid base structures, respectively (Fig. 13C, Fig. 17; [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to texture the surface of the substrate of modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp such that the surface of the substrate includes pyramid base structures, as disclosed by Motoyoshi, because as evidenced by Motoyoshi, texturing the surface of a substrate is known in the photovoltaic art and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have a reasonable expectation of success when including texture on the substrate surface of modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp based on the teaching of Motoyoshi. Additionally, as evidenced by Motoyoshi, the pyramid shape of the structures is a known shape in the art for the textured structures of a silicon substrate. Such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With regard to the limitation “obtained through polishing treatment,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 10, modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp does disclose the side length of the first polygon is less than the side length of the second polygon (Mitsubishi Electric Corp - side length of convex structure of substrate under 111 in relation to side length of convex structure of substrate under 121 in Fig. 9), modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp does not explicitly disclose a height of the first convex is greater than a height of the second convex.
Motoyoshi discloses a back-contact solar cell (Fig. 13C) and further discloses first and second convex structures comprising first and second pyramid base structures, respectively (Fig. 13C, Fig. 17; [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to texture the surface of the substrate of modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp such that the surface of the substrate includes pyramid base structures, as disclosed by Motoyoshi, because as evidenced by Motoyoshi, texturing the surface of a substrate is known in the photovoltaic art and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have a reasonable expectation of success when including texture on the substrate surface of modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp based on the teaching of Motoyoshi. Additionally, as evidenced by Motoyoshi, the pyramid shape of the structures is a known shape in the art for the textured structures of a silicon substrate. Such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With regard to the limitation requiring a height of the first convex is greater than a height of the second convex, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form a pyramid base structure of the first convex structure such that it is greater in height than a second pyramid base structure of the second convex structure of modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 15, modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp does not explicitly disclose a surface of the isolation region has one of a regular pyramid textured structure, or an inverted pyramid textured structure.
Motoyoshi discloses a back-contact solar cell (Fig. 13C) and further discloses first and second convex structures comprising first and second pyramid base structures, respectively (Fig. 13C, Fig. 17; [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to texture the surface of the substrate of modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp such that the surface of the substrate includes pyramid base structures, as disclosed by Motoyoshi, because as evidenced by Motoyoshi, texturing the surface of a substrate is known in the photovoltaic art and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have a reasonable expectation of success when including texture on the substrate surface of modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp based on the teaching of Motoyoshi. Additionally, as evidenced by Motoyoshi, the pyramid shape of the structures is a known shape in the art for the textured structures of a silicon substrate. Such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 16, modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp does disclose the first convex structure comprises a first convex and a first concave adjacent to the first convex (convex structures in first region of substrate in annotated Fig. 7-14 above have adjacent concave structures), modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp does not explicitly disclose the second convex structure comprises a second convex and a second concave adjacent to the second convex.
Motoyoshi discloses a back-contact solar cell (Fig. 13C) and further discloses first and second convex structures comprising first and second pyramid base structures, respectively (Fig. 13C, Fig. 17; [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to texture the surface of the substrate of modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp such that the surface of the substrate includes pyramid base structures, as disclosed by Motoyoshi, because as evidenced by Motoyoshi, texturing the surface of a substrate is known in the photovoltaic art and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have a reasonable expectation of success when including texture on the substrate surface of modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp based on the teaching of Motoyoshi.
Modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses the second convex structure comprises a second convex and a second concave adjacent to the second convex (the pyramidal structures of the texture of the second region of the substrate of modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp satisfies the limitation “a second convex and a second concave adjacent to the second convex”), wherein a surface of each of the first convex, the first concave, the second convex, and the second concave is in a shape of one or more polygons (the texture of the first and second regions of the substrate of modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp satisfies the limitation).
With regard to the limitation “wherein a side length of a polygon of the first convex is a1, a side length of a polygon of the first concave is b1, a side length of a polygon of the second convex is a2, and a side length of a polygon of the second concave is b2, and wherein 0.5b1<a1<1.5b1, and 0.5b2<a2<1.5b2,” such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 17, modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “a2>a1 and b2>b1,” such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 18, modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein a2>1.5a1 and b2>1.5b1,” such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi Electric Corp (WO 2013/125036) in view of Hirose et al. (US 2013/0102107) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (CN 106531816 A – see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 24, modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp does not explicitly disclose the first and second doped semiconductor layers comprise polycrystalline silicon.
Sun discloses a back-contact solar cell ([0006]) and further discloses the use of polycrystalline silicon to form doped semiconductor layers ([0107], [0124]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the doped semiconductor layers of modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp with either amorphous or polycrystalline silicon, as disclosed by Sun, because as evidenced by Sun, the use of either amorphous silicon or polycrystalline silicon to form doped semiconductor layers in a photovoltaic device amounts to the use of known materials in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the doped semiconductor layers of modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp with polysilicon based on the teaching of Sun.
Claims 1, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi Electric Corp (WO 2013/125036) in view of Hirose et al. (US 2013/0102107).
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 12, Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses a back-contact solar cell (Fig. 7-14) comprising: a semiconductor substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (101 in Fig. 7-14), wherein the second surface comprises a first region and a second region arranged in a direction of the second surface (shown in annotated Fig. 7-14 below), and an isolation region between the first region and the second region (any region of the second surface of the substrate between the first region and the second region depicted in annotated Fig. 7-14 below), wherein a surface of the first region has a first convex structure (convex structure of 101 in first regions in annotated Fig. 7-14 below), and a surface of the second region has a second convex structure (convex structure of 101 in second regions in annotated Fig. 7-14 below), wherein a morphology of the first convex structure is different from a morphology of the second convex structure (surface of 101 in first and second regions in annotated Fig. 7-14 below); a first doped semiconductor layer, formed on the first region, wherein the first doped semiconductor layer is on the first convex structure (104 in annotated Fig. 7-14 below); and a second doped semiconductor layer, formed on the second region, wherein the second doped semiconductor layer is on the second convex structure (102 in annotated Fig. 7-14 below), wherein a conductivity type of the second doped semiconductor layer is opposite to a conductivity type of the first doped semiconductor (abstract); a first electrode on the first doped semiconductor layer (121 on 104 in Fig. 7-14; it is noted that the limitation “on” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components); and a second electrode on the second doped semiconductor layer (111 on 102 in Fig. 7-14; it is noted that the limitation “on” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components), wherein the first electrode and the second electrode comprise a conductive material (abstract).
Mitsubishi Electric Corp does not explicitly disclose a doping concentration of the first doped semiconductor layer is lower than a doping concentration of the second doped semiconductor layer.
Hirose discloses a back-contact solar cell (Fig. 10B) and further discloses a doping concentration of a first doped semiconductor layer is lower than a doping concentration of a second doped semiconductor layer ([0112] discloses second region 312 is a back surface field and with an n+ or p+ dopant concentration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the second doped semiconductor layer of Mitsubishi Electric Corp with a higher concentration than the first doped semiconductor layer, as disclosed in Hirose, because as taught by Hirose, minority carriers are repelled by the electric field of the n-n+ or p-p+ junction and attracted to the p-n junction side, whereby recombination of carriers in the vicinity of the second electrode can be prevented ([0112]).
Modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp further discloses a surface of the first convex structure facing away from the semiconductor substrate is in a shape of a first polygon (Mitsubishi Electric Corp - convex structure under 121 in Fig. 9), wherein a surface of the second convex structure facing away from the semiconductor substrate is in a shape of a second polygon (Mitsubishi Electric Corp - convex structure under 111 in Fig. 9).
Modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp further discloses the first convex structure and the second convex structure each comprise a top surface facing away from the semiconductor substrate (shown in annotated Fig. 7-14 below) and a bottom surface opposite to the top surface (the limitation requiring a “bottom surface” for the first and second convex structures is interpreted in a manner consistent with the description of paragraph [0108] and Figures 6 through 9 of the as-filed specification; based on this interpretation, the first and second convex structures of modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp necessarily have a bottom surface opposite to the top surface), and the top surface of the second convex structure is closer to the first surface of the semiconductor substrate than the top surface of the first convex structure (top surface above 111 and top surface above 121 in annotated Fig. 7-14 below in relation to the first surface of 101).
With regard to the limitations “wherein a side length of a first convex of the first convex structure is less than a side length of a second convex of the second convex structure,” and “wherein a side length of a first polygon of the one or more first polygons is less than a side length of a second polygon of the one or more second polygons,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form any of the sides of a second convex structure of modified Mitsubishi Electric Corp such that a side length of a first polygon is less than a side length of a second polygon because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
[AltContent: textbox (second regions)]
[AltContent: textbox (first regions)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (top surfaces)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
239
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that none of the cited references disclose “a doping concentration of the first doped semiconductor layer is lower than a doping concentration of the second doped semiconductor layer.” In response to Applicant’s argument, as set forth in the office action, Hirose discloses a back-contact solar cell (Fig. 10B) and further discloses a doping concentration of a first doped semiconductor layer is lower than a doping concentration of a second doped semiconductor layer ([0112] discloses second region 312 is a back surface field and with an n+ or p+ dopant concentration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the second doped semiconductor layer of Mitsubishi Electric Corp with a higher concentration than the first doped semiconductor layer, as disclosed in Hirose, because as taught by Hirose, minority carriers are repelled by the electric field of the n-n+ or p-p+ junction and attracted to the p-n junction side, whereby recombination of carriers in the vicinity of the second electrode can be prevented ([0112]).
As evidenced by Hirose, the use of either n+ or p+ dopant concentration amounts to the use of a known configuration in the art, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when incorporating either an n+ or p+ dopant concentration in the back contact solar cell of Mitsubishi Electric Corp based on the teaching of Hirose. The breadth of the limitation “a doping concentration of the first doped semiconductor is lower than a doping concentration of the second dopant layer” is not commensurate with the structure described in the as-filed specification which results in the technical effects described on page 11 of 13 of Applicant’s Remarks filed 11/14/2025.
Applicant argues that the Office Action lacks any explanation on why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the cited references to arrive at the claim limitations of claim 1: where in the first region, a side length of a first convex of the first convex structure is smaller, and a doping concentration of the first doped semiconductor layer is lower, while in the second region, a side length of a first convex of the first convex structure is greater, and a doping concentration of the second doped semiconductor layer is greater.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the limitation “wherein a side length of a first convex of the first convex structure is less than a side length of a second convex of the second convex structure, and wherein a doping concentration of the first doped semiconductor layer is lower than a doping concentration of the second doped semiconductor layer” is not commensurate in scope with the structure described in the as-filed specification which results in the technical effects set forth on page 11 of 13 of Applicant’s Remarks of 11/14/2025. The breadth of the limitation does not patentably distinguish the claimed structure from that of the prior art structure based on the teachings of the prior art cited in the Office Action. Absent a showing that a modification of the prior art structure, which satisfies the breadth of the limitation recited, would result in the technical effects described on page 11 of 13 of Applicant’s Remarks, the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 |. A. and KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
As set forth in the Office Action, Mitsubishi Electric Corp discloses a side length of a first convex of the first convex structure is less than a side length of a second convex of the second convex structure, and Hirose teaches minority carriers are repelled by the electric field of the n-n+ or p-p+ junction and attracted to the p-n junction side, whereby recombination of carriers in the vicinity of the second electrode can be prevented ([0112]), which renders the limitation “a doping concentration of the first doped semiconductor layer is lower than a doping concentration of the second doped semiconductor layer” obvious to one skilled in the art as set forth in the Office Action.
As set forth in MPEP 2141, a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
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 argues that the cited references cannot achieve the technical effects of the claimed invention. Applicant argues that for example, the side length of the second quasi-polygon is greater than that of the first quasi-polygon, making the surface of the second doped semiconductor layer smoother than the first doped semiconductor layer so that the thickness of the surface passivation layer on the second doped semiconductor layer is greater than that on the first doped semiconductor layer.
In response to Applicant’s argument, while claim 23 does recite “a passivation
layer covering the first doped semiconductor layer and the second doped semiconductor layer, wherein a first portion of the passivation layer is on the first doped semiconductor layer, and a second portion of the passivation layer is on the second doped semiconductor layer, and wherein a thickness of the second portion of the passivation layer is greater than a thickness of the first portion of the passivation layer,” claim 1 does not contain this limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726