DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments to the Claims and Remarks filed December 22, 2025.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed December 22, 2025, the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously presented in the Office Action sent September 23, 2025 has been withdrawn.
In view of the Amendments to the Claims filed December 22, 2025, the rejections of claims 1-17, 19, 21, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously presented in the Office Action sent September 23, 2025 have been substantially maintained and modified only in response to the Amendments to the Claims.
Claims 1-17, 19, 21, and 25 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9, 13-17, 19, 21, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westerberg et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0284896 A1) in view of Ye et al. (CN 105762234 A included in Applicant submitted IDS filed July 29, 2024).
With regard to claims 1 and 13, Westerberg et al. discloses a preparation method for a solar cell and solar cell prepared thereof, comprising the following steps:
S10, providing a silicon wafer substrate (102, Fig. 1), wherein
the silicon wafer substrate has a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (as depicted in Fig. 1, the cited silicon wafer substrate 102 has a first top surface and a second bottom surface opposite to the first surface);
S20, forming a silicon-containing film on the first surface of the silicon wafer substrate, the silicon-containing film comprising a silicon oxide layer, a doping layer, and a mask layer that are sequentially formed on the first surface of the silicon wafer substrate (as depicted in Fig. 1, forming a silicon-containing film on the cited first/top surface of the silicon wafer substrate 102, the silicon-containing film comprising a silicon oxide layer 104, a doping layer 106, and a mask layer 108 that are sequentially formed on the cited first/top surface of the silicon wafer substrate 102);
S30, patterning the silicon-containing film on the first surface to form a patterned region (as depicted in Fig. 2, patterning the cited silicon-containing film 104/106/108 on the cited first/top surface to form a patterned region 109); and
S40, performing texturing treatment to the silicon wafer substrate having the silicon- containing film and the patterned region (as depicted in Fig. 3, performing texturing treatment to the silicon wafer substrate 102 having the cited silicon- containing film 104/106/108 and the cited patterned region 109).
Westerberg et al. does not disclose wherein a method for forming the doping layer having a thickness of 30 nm to 300 nm comprises: forming a doping layer having an initial thickness of 10 nm to 30 nm in an atmosphere in which a flow rate of a doping gas source is 100 sccm to 1000 sccm and a flow rate of silane is 1000 sccm to 4000 sccm, and forming a remaining thickness of the doping layer in an atmosphere in which a flow rate of the doping gas source is 1500 sccm to 3000 sccm and a flow rate of the silane is 1000 sccm to 4000 sccm.
However, Ye et al. teaches a preparation method for a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches
a method for forming the doping layer having a thickness of 30 nm to 300 nm (see [0015] teaching “1-80 nm” which is cited to read on the claimed “30 nm to 300 nm” because it includes values within the claimed range; see [0016] teaching the doping layer can including two or more doping layers with different doping concentrations) comprises:
forming a doping layer having an initial thickness in an atmosphere of a flow rate of a doping gas source and a flow rate of silane (recall [0016-0020] teaching two or more doping layers with different doping concentrations by controlling the flow rate and ratio of reaction gas; see [0019] teaching an atmosphere of a flow rate of a doping gas source and a flow rate of silane), and
forming a remaining thickness of the doping layer in an atmosphere in which a flow rate of the doping gas source is increased and a flow rate of the silane (see [0016-0020] and [0055]).
Ye et al. does not teach wherein the initial thickness is 10 nm to 30 nm.
However, the initial thickness of the doping layer with a lower doping concentration is a result effective variable directly affecting the overall doping concentration which affects the conversion efficiency of the solar cell (see [0022-0023]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the initial thickness of the doping layer in the method of Ye et al. and arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the overall doping concentration and conversion efficiency of the solar cell.
Ye et al. does not teach the claimed flow rates of the doping gas source and the silane in the initial doping layer and the remaining thickness of the doping layer.
However, the flow rates of the doping gas source and the silane are result effective variables directly affecting the concentration of the dopant in the doping layer (see [0018]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the flow rates of the doping gas source and the silane in the method of Ye et al., as modified above, and arrive at the claimed ranges through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the concentration of the dopant in the doping layer.
Ye et al. teaches the method for forming the doping layer provides for the overall concentration of the doped layer being reduced, which reduces recombination rate, avoids generation of precipitation, increases lifetime of minority carriers, and increases conversion efficiency.
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of forming the doping layer in the method of Westerberg et al. to include the method of Ye et al., as modified above, because it would have provided for the overall concentration of the doped layer being reduced, which reduces recombination rate, avoiding generation of precipitation, increasing lifetime of minority carriers, and increasing conversion efficiency.
With regard to claims 2 and 14, independent claims 1 and 13 are obvious over Westerberg et al. in view of Ye et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Ye et al. discloses wherein
a temperature for forming the doping layer in step S20 is 200°C to 700°C (see [0054] teaching “400°C”).
With regard to claims 3 and 15, independent claims 1 and 13 are obvious over Westerberg et al. in view of Ye et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Ye et al. discloses wherein
the doping gas source is selected from at least one of phosphorane, diborane, trimethylborane, and boron trifluoride (see [0019]).
With regard to claims 4 and 16, independent claims 1 and 13 are obvious over Westerberg et al. in view of Ye et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Westerberg et al., as modified above, discloses further comprising
a step of annealing after step S20 and prior to step S30 (see Ye et al. at [0059] teaching, at the end of forming a silicon-containing film, a post annealing step at 750-950°C).
With regard to claims 5 and 17, dependent claims 4 and 16 are obvious over Westerberg et al. in view of Ye et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Westerberg et al., as modified above, discloses wherein
in the step of annealing, an annealing temperature is 800°C to 950°C (see Ye et al. at [0059] teaching 750-950°C).
Ye et al. does not disclose wherein the annealing time is 30 min to 50 min.
However, the time of the annealing process is a result effective variable directly affecting the duration of the preparation method of the solar cell.
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the annealing time in the method of Ye et al. and arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the duration of the preparation method of the solar cell.
With regard to claims 7 and 19, independent claims 1 and 13 are obvious over Westerberg et al. in view of Ye et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Westerberg et al. discloses wherein
a thickness of the silicon oxide layer 0.5 nm to 2.5 nm (see [0033] teaching “approximately 2 nanometers or less”).
With regard to claims 9 and 21, independent claims 1 and 13 are obvious over Westerberg et al. in view of Ye et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Westerberg et al., as modified above, does not disclose wherein a thickness of the mask layer 5 nm to 100 nm.
However, the thickness of the mask layer is a result effective variable directly affecting the material cost of the cited mask layer.
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the thickness of the mask layer in the method of Westerberg et al., as modified above, and arrive at the claimed range through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the material cost of the mask layer.
With regard to claim 25, Westerberg et al. discloses a photovoltaic system, comprising
a solar cell assembly and an auxiliary device, the solar cell assembly comprising the solar cell according to claim 13 (see Abstract and [0023-0024] teaching “solar cells” which would provide for a solar cell assembly comprising the solar cell according to claim 13, recall rejection of claim 13 above, and an auxiliary device such as another solar cell).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westerberg et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0284896 A1) in view of Ye et al. (CN 105762234 A included in Applicant submitted IDS filed July 29, 2024), and in further view of Johnson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0284923 A1).
With regard to claim 6, independent claim 1 is obvious over Westerberg et al. in view of Ye et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Westerberg et al. does not disclose wherein the silicon oxide layer is formed on the first surface by plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition, low pressure chemical vapor deposition, or thermal oxygen.
However, Johnson et al. discloses a preparation method for a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a silicon oxide layer can be formed by PECVD (see [0077]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have substitute the method of forming the silicon oxide layer in the method of Westerberg et al. for the PECVD method of Johnson et al. because the simple substitution of a known element known in the art to perform the same function, in the instant case method of forming a silicon oxide layer in a solar cell, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2143B).
With regard to claim , independent claim 1 is obvious over Westerberg et al. in view of Ye et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Westerberg et al. does not disclose wherein the mask layer is formed on the doping layer by thermal oxygen, plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition, or low pressure chemical vapor deposition.
However, Johnson et al. discloses a preparation method for a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches a mask layer can be formed by PECVD (see [0060]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have substitute the method of forming the mask layer in the method of Westerberg et al. for the PECVD method of Johnson et al. because the simple substitution of a known element known in the art to perform the same function, in the instant case method of forming a mask layer in a solar cell, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2143B).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westerberg et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0284896 A1) in view of Ye et al. (CN 105762234 A included in Applicant submitted IDS filed July 29, 2024), and in further view of Zhang et al. (CN 113690328 A).
With regard to claims 10 and 11, independent claim 1 is obvious over Westerberg et al. in view of Ye et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Westerberg et al. does not disclose further comprising: after preparing the silicon wafer substrate with a textured surface, forming a first passivation film layer and a first anti-reflection film layer sequentially on the first surface of the silicon wafer substrate with the textured surface and forming a second passivation film layer and a second anti-reflection film layer sequentially on the second surface of the silicon wafer substrate with the textured surface.
However, Zhang et al. discloses a preparation method for a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches after preparing the silicon wafer substrate with a textured surface (see Fig. 1), forming a first passivation film layer and a first anti-reflection film layer sequentially on the first surface of the silicon wafer substrate (see 160, Fig. 1 described in [0046] as multi-layered to include a silicon oxide layer and a silicon nitride layer cited to read on the claimed first passivation film layer and first anti-reflection film) and forming a second passivation film layer (110/120, Fig. 1) and a second anti-reflection film layer 140 sequentially on the second surface of the silicon wafer substrate with the textured surface (see Fig. 1).
Zhang et al. teaches the passivation layers and anti-reflection films provide for enhance incident effect of incident light and passivation effect (see [0026], [0042], and [0046]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Westerberg et al. to include the forming of the first and second passivation layers and anti-reflection films, as suggested by Zhang et al., because it would have provided for enhanced incident effect of incident light and passivation effects.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westerberg et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0284896 A1) in view of Ye et al. (CN 105762234 A included in Applicant submitted IDS filed July 29, 2024) and Zhang et al. (CN 113690328 A), and in further view of Tong et al. (CN 112885925 A).
With regard to claim 12, dependent claim 10 is obvious over Westerberg et al. in view of Ye et al. and Zhang et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Westerberg et al. teaches preparing a first electrode and a second electrode (see Fig. 7) but does not disclose forming a hole on the patterned region on the first surface by patterning using a laser, and preparing the first and second electrode by screen printing.
However, Tong et al. discloses preparation method for a solar cell (see Title and Abstract) and teaches forming a hole on a patterned region on a first surface by patterning using a laser (see [0089] “laser ablation”), and preparing the first and second electrode by screen printing (see [0090] teaching “screen printing”).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the method of forming the first and second electrode Westerberg et al., as modified above, to include the laser and screen printing technique of Tong et al. because the simple substitution of a known element known in the art to perform the same function, in the instant case a technique of forming a first and second electrode in a solar cell, supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2143 B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the response that since an initial thickness in Ye et al. is 2 nm and the conditions of the chamber are much different from the claimed invention, Ye et al. does not teach the claimed limitations.
However, this argument is not persuasive. The rejections of the claims do not allege or rely on Ye et al. to teach the claimed initial thickness and the claimed conditions of the chamber. Ye et al. teaches the initial thickness and conditions of the chamber as result effective variables.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN Q DAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5120. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DUSTIN Q DAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 February 27, 2026