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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 14, 15, & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (CN 113363354 -as cited in IDS) in view of Harrington (US Pub no. 2019/0207040 A1- as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Shao et al discloses A preparation method for a solar cell, comprising: providing a silicon wafer substrate(1) having a first surface (back surface)and a second surface (front surface)opposite to the first surface (fig. 1) ; forming a silicon-containing film (6/7)on the first surface of the silicon wafer substrate(1)(fig. 1)(pp. 10 para 1 and pp. 12 para 2 and para 4), the silicon-containing film (6/7)comprising a silicon oxide layer(6), a doped layer(7), and a mask layer (S3-mask)formed sequentially on the first surface of the silicon wafer substrate(1) (pp. 13, para 3-4); patterning the silicon-containing film(6/7) on the first surface by laser to form a patterned region(fig. 1; pp. 13 para 5-7); and placing the pre-treated silicon wafer substrate (1) into a texturing liquid containing a strong monobasic base for texturing treatment(pp. 14, para 1).
Shao et al fails to teach placing the silicon wafer substrate having the silicon-containing film and the patterned region into an alkaline solution containing a strong monobasic base for pre-treatment, to obtain a pre-treated silicon wafer substrate, wherein a concentration of the strong monobasic base in the alkaline solution used in the pre-treatment is greater than a concentration of the strong monobasic base in the texturing liquid used in the texturing treatment.
However, Harrington et al discloses a solar cell having a light -receiving surface (402) of the substrate (401)having an average surface roughness between (RA) 475-525 nanometers and a non-zero surface roughness factor of the backside surface of the substrate having an average surface roughness (RA) between 175-225 nanometers [0055]. The surface roughness is achieved by performing a pre-texturizing process with a KOH solution having a weight percent in the range of 20-45%[0042] and a NaOH etch process having a solution of 3-45% to texturize the backside of the substrate[0044][0047]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the concentrations such that a concentration of the strong monobasic base in the alkaline solution used in the pre-treatment is greater than a concentration of the strong monobasic base in the texturing liquid used in the texturing treatment through routine experimentation to optimize surface smoothness. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shao et al with the teachings of Harrington et al such that placing the silicon wafer substrate having the silicon-containing film and the patterned region into an alkaline solution containing a strong monobasic base for pre-treatment, to obtain a pre-treated silicon wafer substrate, wherein a concentration of the strong monobasic base in the alkaline solution used in the pre-treatment is greater than a concentration of the strong monobasic base in the texturing liquid used in the texturing treatment results to deliver a cost effective and less hazardous chemical etching to control the texture of the backside of the cell.
Regarding claim 2, Harrington et al discloses texturing treatment., wherein the strong monobasic base in the alkaline solution or the strong monobasic base in the texturing liquid is selected from a group consisting of potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, and a combination thereof[0042][0044].
Regarding claim 3, Harrington et al discloses wherein a concentration of the strong monobasic base in the alkaline solution in the pre-treatment . Harrington et al teaches a concentration range of 20-45% and less than 5% of KOH or NaOH [0042]but fails to teach is in a range from 0.3 mol/L to 2 mol/L. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve an intermediate concentration of 0,.3 to 2mol/L (`1.7 to 10.3 weight percent) through routine experimentation to control surface roughness."[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Harrington et al discloses wherein a time of the pre-treatment with the alkaline solution [0042]but fails tis in a range from 10 s to 200 s. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a range from 10 s to 200 s through routine experimentation since in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 5, Harrington et al discloses wherein a temperature of the pre-treatment with the alkaline solution is in a range [0042]but fails to teach from 60 °C to 80 °C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a range from 60 °C to 80 °C through routine experimentation since in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 6, Shao et al discloses wherein the silicon oxide layer(6) is deposited on the first surface by a method of chain oxidation(introducing ozone into the water or micro-acid solution)(pp. 11 para 1-2), and then the doped layer(7) and the mask layer(s3-mask) are deposited on the silicon oxide layer(6) by a method
of plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition or low-pressure chemical vapor deposition(pp 12 para 4 and pp. 13 para 3-4).
Regarding claim 8, Harrington et al discloses wherein the texturing treatment comprises placing the pre-treated silicon wafer substrate into the texturing liquid containing the strong monobasic base at a concentration[0041] but fails to teach of 0.15 mol/L to 0.35. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a concentration of 0.15 mol/L to 0.35 through routine experimentation to optimize texturing. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, Shao et al discloses wherein the silicon oxide layer, the doped layer and the mask layer having thicknesses(pp. 11 para 3;pp. 12 para 2; pp. 13 para 2-4 but fails to teach a thickness of 0.5 nm to 3 nm, a thickness of 30 nm to 300 nm, and a thickness of 10 nm to 100 nm, respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve silicon oxide layer thickness of 0.5 nm to 3 nm, the doped layer thickness of 30 nm to 300 nm, and the mask layer thickness of 10 nm to 100 nm through routine experimentation, in the case of the silicon oxide layer to optimize passivation. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). With regards to the doped layer and mask layer, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 15, Shao et al discloses wherein a material of the mask layer is silicon oxide(pp. 13 para 3-4).
Regarding claim 18, Harrinton et al discloses wherein a time of the texturing treatment is 400 s to 600 s[0044].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (CN 113363354 ) in view of Harrington (US Pub no. 2019/0207040 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Mueller (US Pub no. 2015/0027522 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Shao et al as modified by Harrington et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach further comprising treating the silicon-containing film wrapped around the second surface of the silicon wafer substrate with a hydrofluoric acid at a concentration of 4 mol/L to 6 mol/L after the patterning and before the pre-treatment.
Mueller et al discloses further comprising treating the silicon-containing (102/11) wrapped around the second surface of the silicon wafer substrate with a hydrofluoric acid after the patterning and before the pre- treatment[0026] but fails to teach at a concentration of 4 mol/L to 6 mol/L. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a concentration of 4 mol/L to 6 mol/L, to optimize removal of laser damage. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shao et al & Harrington et al with the teachings of Mueller et al to remove glassy layer produced by the laser process.
Claim(s) 9 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (CN 113363354 ) in view of Harrington (US Pub no. 2019/0207040 A1) as applied to claims 1 & 8 and further in view of Chen (US Pub no. 2023/0027079 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Shao et al as modified by Harrington et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 and further teaches after preparing the silicon wafer substrate(1) with the textured surface (Shao et al-pp 14 para 3), but fails to teach sequentially forming a first passivation film and a first anti-reflection film on the first surface of the silicon wafer substrate having the textured surface.
Chen et al discloses sequentially forming a first passivation film (40)and a first anti-reflection film(50) on the first surface of the silicon wafer substrate(10) having the textured surface[0161]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Shao et al & Harrington et al with the teachings of Chen et al to reduce parasitic light absorption.
Regarding claim 10, Shao et al as modified by Harrington et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 8 and further teaches after preparing the silicon wafer substrate(1) with the textured surface (Shao et al-pp 14 para 3), bu fails to teach sequentially forming a first passivation film and a first anti-reflection film on the first surface of the silicon wafer substrate having the textured surface.
Chen et al discloses sequentially forming a first passivation film (40)and a first anti-reflection film(50) on the first surface of the silicon wafer substrate(10) having the textured surface[0161]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Shao et al & Harrington et al with the teachings of Chen et al to reduce parasitic light absorption.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (CN 113363354 ) in view of Harrington (US Pub no. 2019/0207040 A1) and Chen (US Pub no. 2023/0027079 A1) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Esturo-Breton (US Pub no. 2011/0214727 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Shao et al as modified by Harrington et al & Chen et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 9. Chen et al further teach after forming the first passivation film(40) and the first anti-reflection film(40), further comprising: patterning the patterned region on the first surface to form holes preparing a first electrode(120) and a second electrode (120)[0210] fig. 12 but fails to teach forming holes by laser and screen printing first and second electrodes.
Esturo-Breton et al discloses openings formed by laser ablation and forming electrodes (92) by screen printing [0068]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Shao et al, Harrington et al & Chen et al with the teachings of Esturo-Breton et al since the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 7 USPQ2d 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (CN 113363354 ) in view of Harrington (US Pub no. 2019/0207040 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Qiu(US Patent 11,450,777 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Shao et al as modified by Harrington et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the alkaline solution comprises an additive containing a catalyst capable of accelerating a reaction of the strong monobasic base with silicon.
However, Qiu et al discloses wherein the alkaline solution comprises an additive
containing a catalyst capable of accelerating a reaction of the strong monobasic base
with silicon( col. 21 lines 30-35). Since an additive containing a catalyst capable of accelerating a reaction of the strong monobasic base with silicon taught by Qiu et al is
one of finite solutions to control the depth of recesses, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try in
Chen et al & Mueller et al because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated
success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense
(KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007))
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: wherein the alkaline solution comprises an additive containing an organic group capable of being adsorbed onto the mask layer to form a barrier to prevent the mask layer from reacting with the strong monobasic base was not found in prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed 5/13/2026, with respect to claim 1-15 & 17-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of claim 1 -15 & 17-18 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON whose telephone number is (571)270-3208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-4:30 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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights