DETAILED ACTION
(1)
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 .
(2)
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 30, 2026, has been entered.
Applicant amended claims 3-9, 12 and 13 and cancelled claims 1, 2, 10 and 11. No new matter is entered. Claims 3-9, 12 and 13 are pending before the Office for review. Claims 14-20 remain withdrawn in response to a restriction requirement.
(3)
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 3-9, 12 and 13 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the terminal electrode" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be “the first terminal electrode” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the terminal electrode" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This should be “the second terminal electrode” for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the contact layer structure" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It’s unclear if this refers to the first or second contact layer structure.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the terminal electrode" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It’s unclear if this refers to the first or second terminal electrode.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the contact layer structure" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It’s unclear if this refers to the first or second contact layer structure.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the MCS layer" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It’s unclear if this refers to the first or second MCS layer.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the MCS layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It’s unclear if this refers to the first or second MCS layer.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the MCS layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It’s unclear if this refers to the first or second MCS layer.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the MCS layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It’s unclear if this refers to the first or second MCS layer.
Claim 12 requires the first electrode is a front electrode and the first multi-layer contact structure is textured. This requirement is indefinite because the type of cell defined by claim 13, from which claim 12 depends is a back-contact solar cell. Accordingly, it’s not clear what is required by this feature of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the first electrode" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite because their scope is unascertainable to one ordinarily skilled in the art. Claims 3-9 and 12 are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 13.
(4)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 3-8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang (KR 20190087104 A) and ZZZ. The citations to Chang refer to the included English language machine translation.
With respect to claim 13, Chang teaches a photovoltaic cell (Figure 3) comprising a first multi-layer contact structure comprising a semiconductor substrate (210), a first terminal electrode (282) and a first contact layer structure in direct contact with the semiconductor substrate and the first terminal electrode, the contact layer structure comprising a passivating tunnel layer (250) between a first, hole-selective metal-containing selective layer (262) and the semiconductor substrate. Figure 3 and Pages 3-5.
Chang further teaches the photovoltaic cell comprises a second multi-layer contact structure comprising the substrate (210), a second terminal electrode (284), and a second contact layer structure in direct contact with the semiconductor substrate and the second terminal electrode, the contact layer structure comprising a passivating tunnel layer (250) between a second, electron-selective metal-containing selective layer (264) and the semiconductor substrate, wherein the passivating tunnel layer is the same for each multi-layer contact structure. Figure 3 and Pages 3-5.
With respect to claim 3, Chang teaches the contact layer structure has a partial area contact with the terminal electrode. Figure 3.
With respect to claim 4, Chang teaches each contact layer structure comprises a transparent conductive film (272 or 274) disposed such that each other layer of each contact layer structure is between the transparent conductive film and the substrate. Figure 3 and Page 7.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Chang teaches the first and second metal-containing carrier selective layers are 2-15 nm in thickness. Pages 5 and 7.
With respect to claim 7, Chang teaches the first and second metal-containing carrier selective layers comprise a metal oxide. Pages 5 and 6.
With respect to claim 8, Chang teaches the passivation tunnel layer has a thickness of 0.5 to 2 nm. Page 5.
With respect to claim 12, Chang teaches the substrate and the corresponding first multi-layer contact structure are textured to improve power generation efficiency. Pages 4 and 7.
(5)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (KR 20190087104 A) in view of Yoon et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0157497). The citations to Chang refer to the included English language machine translation.
With respect to claim 9, Chang teaches the transparent conductive film layer but is silent as to its thickness.
However, Yoon, which as previously-noted, deals with multi-layer contact structures comprising transparent conductive films, teaches a thickness of 50 to 100 nm is an effective thickness for such a film. Paragraphs 35-39. As per the MPEP, where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of Chang with Yoon is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Both Chang and Yoon deal with photovoltaic cells comprising multi-layer contact structures comprising a transparent conductive film. Yoon teaches a thickness of 50 to 100 nm is an effective thickness for the transparent conductive film. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Chang’s transparent conductive film with this thickness because Yoon teaches it to be an effective thickness, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
(6)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the rejection.
(7)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI S MEKHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 am to 5:00 pm 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ELI S MEKHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights