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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pietro et al. (CN 113506832 A) (refer to US 2024/0313132 A1 for English translation). Supporting evidence is provided by Kumari et al. (“Transport properties of RF-magnetron sputtered AZO thin films: the effect of processes parameters during and post deposition”, 2018 4th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Electronics (ICEE), Bengaluru, India, 2018, pp. 1-4).
Regarding claim 1, Pietro discloses a solar cell (20, fig. 2, [0042]), comprising:
a silicon substrate (N-type doping first semiconductor layer 26, or combination of P-type silicon substrate 25 and N-type doping first semiconductor layer 26, fig. 2 and [0042]); and
a transparent conductive film (22) (fig. 2 and [0042]) arranged on a light-receiving surface (top surface of 26) of the silicon substrate (26 or 25+26) and is in contact with the silicon substrate (26 or 25+26) (see fig. 2),
wherein a thickness of the transparent conductive film (22) is 60 nm ([0048]), which is within the claimed range of 15-200 nm.
Pietro further discloses that the transparent conductive film (2) is made of zinc oxide ([0040] and [0048]), as in the case of the instant application ([0052]), with a thickness of 60 nm ([0048]), which is within the thickness range disclosed by instant application ([0045]).
"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP §2112.01 (II).
Therefore, the transparent conductive film (22) of Pietro must have low-absorption coefficient as in the case of the instant application, and reads on instant claimed low-absorption coefficient layer.
Pietro further discloses that the low-absorption coefficient layer (22) is made of AZO ([0040] and [0048]), which is an n-type conductive oxide as evidenced by Kumari (see Abstract). Pietro also discloses that the light-receiving surface (top surface of layer 26) has N-type conductivity (see fig. 2 and [0042]). Thus, the low-absorption coefficient layer (22) and the light-receiving surface (top surface of 26) the silicon substrate (26 or 25+26) have a same conductivity type (N-type).
Regarding claim 2, Pietro further discloses that the low-absorption coefficient layer (22) is made of zinc oxide ([0040] and [0048]), as in the case of the instant application ([0052]) and the substrate (26 or 25+26) is made of silicon ([0053-0060]) as in the case of the instant application.
"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP §2112.01 (II).
Thus, a band gap of the low-absorption coefficient layer (22) must be greater than or equal to a band gap of the silicon substrate (26 or 25+26) as in the case of the instant application.
Regarding claim 3, Pietro further discloses that a thickness of the low-absorption coefficient layer (22) ranges from 20 to 200 nm (60 nm, [0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Pietro further discloses that the transparent conductive film (22) is made of zinc oxide ([0040] and [0048]), as in the case of the instant application ([0052]), with a thickness of 60 nm ([0048]), which is within the thickness range disclosed by instant application ([0045]). Thus, it must satisfy the claimed formula as in the case of the instant application.
Regarding claim 5, Pietro further discloses that the transparent conductive film (22) is made of zinc oxide ([0040] and [0048]), as in the case of the instant application ([0052]), with a thickness of 60 nm ([0048]), which is within the thickness range disclosed by instant application ([0045]).
"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP §2112.01 (II).
Therefore, an extinction coefficient of the low-absorption coefficient layer (22) must be greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 2 in a wavelength band of 300 to 400 nm.
Regarding claim 6, Pietro further discloses that the transparent conductive film (22) is made of zinc oxide ([0040] and [0048]), as in the case of the instant application ([0052]), with a thickness of 60 nm ([0048]), which is within the thickness range disclosed by instant application ([0045]).
"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP §2112.01 (II).
Therefore, an integral average extinction coefficient of the low-absorption coefficient layer (22) must be greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 2_in a wavelength band of 300 to 400 nm.
Regarding claim 7, Pietro further discloses that the transparent conductive film (22) is made of zinc oxide ([0040] and [0048]).
Regarding claim 8, Pietro further discloses that the transparent conductive film (22) is made of zinc oxide ([0040] and [0048]), wherein the solar cell (20) further comprises a front anti-reflection layer (cover layer 23 which is made of silicon nitride is known to function as AR layer, fig. 2 and [0042]) and a front electrode (front metal electrode 241, fig. 2 and [0042]) located on a side of the low-absorption coefficient layer (22) away from the silicon substrate (26 or 25+26), wherein the front electrode (241) penetrates the front anti-reflection layer (23) to be in contact with the low-absorption coefficient layer (22) (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Pietro further discloses that at least a portion of the low-absorption coefficient layer (22) is doped (aluminum-doping, [0042]), and wherein the solar cell further comprises a front electrode (front metal electrode 241, fig. 2 and [0042]) located on a side of the low-absorption coefficient layer (22) away from the silicon substrate (26 or 25+26), wherein the front electrode (241) is in contact with the at least a portion of the low-absorption coefficient layer (22) (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Pietro further discloses a buffer layer (tunnel layer 21, fig. 2 and [0042]) between the silicon substrate (26 or 25+26) and the low-absorption coefficient layer (22), wherein the buffer layer (21) comprises silicon oxide ([0042]).
Regarding claim 11, Pietro further discloses a thickness of the buffer layer is less than or equal to 4 mm (1.5 nm, [0047]).
Regarding claim 14, Pietro discloses a method for preparing a solar cell (solar cell 20 as shown in fig. 2, [0042], process steps are disclosed in [0053-0062]), comprising:
providing a silicon substrate (N-type doping first semiconductor layer 26, or combination of P-type silicon substrate 25 and N-type doping first semiconductor layer 26, fig. 2 and [0042]); and
arranging a transparent conductive film (22) (fig. 2 and [0042]) on a light-receiving surface (top surface of 26) of the silicon substrate (26 or 25+26) and is in contact with the silicon substrate (26 or 25+26) (see fig. 2),
wherein a thickness of the transparent conductive film (22) is 60 nm ([0048]), which is within the claimed range of 15-200 nm.
Pietro further discloses that the transparent conductive film (2) is made of zinc oxide ([0040] and [0048]), as in the case of the instant application ([0052]), with a thickness of 60 nm ([0048]), which is within the thickness range disclosed by instant application ([0045]).
"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP §2112.01 (II).
Therefore, the transparent conductive film (22) of Pietro must have low-absorption coefficient as in the case of the instant application, and reads on instant claimed low-absorption coefficient layer.
Pietro further discloses that the low-absorption coefficient layer (22) is made of AZO ([0040] and [0048]), which is an n-type conductive oxide as evidenced by Kumari (see Abstract). Pietro also discloses that the light-receiving surface (top surface of layer 26) has N-type conductivity (see fig. 2 and [0042]). Thus, the low-absorption coefficient layer (22) and the light-receiving surface (top surface of 26) the silicon substrate (26 or 25+26) have a same conductivity type (N-type).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietro as applied above, and further in view of Nagano et al. (US 2003/0111106 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Pietro does not explicitly disclose that the light receiving surface of the silicon substrate has a light-trapping structure.
Nagao discloses a solar cell (figure 1) wherein a semiconductor substrate (2) has uneven structure on a light receiving surface (top surface, fig. 1 and [0050]), which is same as figure 4 of instant application). Nagano further discloses the uneven structure or light-trapping structure allows for an improve of the short circuit current density of the solar cell ([0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the uneven structure as shown by Nagao on the light-receiving surface of the silicon substrate of Pietro such that short circuit current density can be improved.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietro et al. (CN 113506832 A) (refer to US 2024/0313132 A1 for English translation) in view of Yang et al. (US 2005/0178431 A1). Supporting evidence is provided by Kumari et al. (“Transport properties of RF-magnetron sputtered AZO thin films: the effect of processes parameters during and post deposition”, 2018 4th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Electronics (ICEE), Bengaluru, India, 2018, pp. 1-4).
Regarding claim 13, Pietro discloses a solar cell (20, fig. 2, [0042]), comprising:
a silicon substrate (N-type doping first semiconductor layer 26, or combination of P-type silicon substrate 25 and N-type doping first semiconductor layer 26, fig. 2 and [0042]); and
a transparent conductive film (22) (fig. 2 and [0042]) arranged on a light-receiving surface (top surface of 26) of the silicon substrate (26 or 25+26) and is in contact with the silicon substrate (26 or 25+26) (see fig. 2),
wherein a thickness of the transparent conductive film (22) is 60 nm ([0048]), which is within the claimed range of 15-200 nm.
Pietro further discloses that the transparent conductive film (2) is made of zinc oxide ([0040] and [0048]), as in the case of the instant application ([0052]), with a thickness of 60 nm ([0048]), which is within the thickness range disclosed by instant application ([0045]).
"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP §2112.01 (II).
Therefore, the transparent conductive film (22) of Pietro must have low-absorption coefficient as in the case of the instant application, and reads on instant claimed low-absorption coefficient layer.
Pietro further discloses that the low-absorption coefficient layer (22) is made of AZO ([0040] and [0048]), which is an n-type conductive oxide as evidenced by Kumari (see Abstract). Pietro also discloses that the light-receiving surface (top surface of layer 26) has N-type conductivity (see fig. 2 and [0042]). Thus, the low-absorption coefficient layer (22) and the light-receiving surface (top surface of 26) the silicon substrate (26 or 25+26) have a same conductivity type (N-type).
However, Pietro does not disclose a plurality of solar cells forming a photovoltaic module.
Yang discloses a solar cell (1, fig. 1/2) and a photovoltaic module (21, fig. 2) comprising a plurality of the solar cells (1) connected in series ([0101]) in order to convert more light to electricity (implicit as more light would be absorbed and converted to electricity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the plurality of solar cells as taught by Yang to form the photovoltaic module of the solar cells of Pietro such that more light can be converted to electricity.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pietro as applied to claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 15, Pietro further discloses that the low-absorption coefficient layer (22) on the light-receiving surface of the silicon substrate (26 or 25+26) through atomic layer deposition ([0059]). Although Pietro does not explicitly disclose that the low-absorption coefficient layer (22) is formed through chemical vapor deposition, evaporation deposition or molecular beam epitaxy, Pietro in an alternative embodiment (fig. 3) discloses an AZO layer can be deposited by atomic layer deposition (ALD) or chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) ([0070]). Thus, Pietro explicitly discloses that PECVD is a known technique that yields predictable result of formation of AZO layer just as ALD deposition process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the PECVD deposition method as taught by embodiment of figure 3 of Pietro to form the AZO layer of embodiment of figure 2 of Pietro because applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (forming AZO layer) is obvious ( KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7am - 4pm.
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.
/GOLAM MOWLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721