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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 and 14-18 in the reply filed on 9/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12 & 13 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/25/2025.
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.
Claim 2 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.
With regards to claim 2: Claim 1 discloses an alkaline solution containing a strong monobasic base for pretreatment and a strong monobasic base for texturing treatment. Claim 2 is unclear because it doesn’t specify which strong monobasic base is being referred to. To further prosecution, the examiner interprets that strong monobasic base refers to the pretreatment solution.
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)1-4,7,14 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pub no. 2023/0027079 A1) in view of Mueller (US Pub no. 2015/0027522 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Chen et al discloses A preparation method for a solar cell, comprising: providing a silicon wafer substrate (2010)having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface[0219]; forming a silicon-containing film (2021/2023)on the first surface of the silicon wafer substrate(2010)[0220-0221], the silicon-
containing film(2021/2023)comprising a silicon oxide layer(20212), a doped layer(20213), and a mask layer (2023)formed
sequentially on the first surface of the silicon wafer substrate(2010)[0220-0221]; patterning the silicon-containing film (2010)on the first surface by laser to form a patterned region(2024)[0029].
Chen 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, and placing the pre-treated silicon wafer substrate into a texturing liquid containing a strong monobasic base for texturing treatment, 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, Mueller et al discloses placing the silicon wafer substrate(100) having the silicon-containing film (102-110)and the patterned region into an alkaline solution(concentrated KOH or NaOH) containing a strong monobasic base for pre-treatment[0025-0026] fig. 5, to obtain a pre- treated silicon wafer substrate(100)(fig. 5), and placing the pre-treated silicon wafer substrate (100)into a texturing liquid (KOH or NaOH)containing a strong monobasic base for texturing treatment, 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[0026] (since the pretreatment solution is a concentrated KOH or NaOH and the texturing liquid is KOH and NaOH, the pretreatment solution has a greater concentration) [0026]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chen et al with the teachings Mueller et al to eliminate pn junction and to reduce reflection losses.
Regarding claim 2, Mueller et al discloses wherein the strong monobasic
base is selected from a group consisting of potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, and a combination thereof[0026].
Regarding claim 3, Mueller et al discloses wherein a
concentration of the strong monobasic base in the alkaline solution in the pre-treatment has a concentration[0026] but fails to teach 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 a range from 0.3 mol/L to 2 mol/L, to optimize the removal of pn junction. [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, Mueller et al discloses wherein a time of
the pre-treatment with the alkaline solution[0026] (Examiner notes the thickness etched is a time dependent variable, therefore “time” during etching a thickness is inferred) but fails to teach is 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, to optimize the removal of pn junction. [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 7, Mueller et al discloses further comprising
treating the silicon-containing film(102/111) 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).
Regarding claim 14, Chen et al discloses wherein the
silicon oxide layer has a thickness of 0.5 nm to 3 nm[0232], the doped layer has a thickness[0232][0005] and the mask layer(2023) has a thickness[0227] but fails to teach the doped layer thickness of 30 nm to 300 nm, and the mask layer has a thickness of 10 nm to 100 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve the doped layer thickness of 30 nm to 300 nm, and the mask layer has a thickness of 10 nm to 100 nm through routine experimentation since the doped layer thickness to optimize resistance and optimize scratch resistance respectively. [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 15, Chen et al discloses a material of the mask layer(20231 of 2023) is silicon oxide[0244].
Claim(s) 5 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pub no. 2023/0027079 A1) in view of Mueller (US Pub no. 2015/0027522 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Qiu (US Patent 11,450,777 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Chen et al as modified by Mueller et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein a temperature of the pre-treatment with the alkaline solution is in a range from 60 °C to 80 °C.
However, Qiu et al discloses using KOH solution in a range from 60 to 85 °C(col. 21 lines 30-35) but fails to teach 60 °C to 80 °C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range of 60 °C to 80 °C. 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). Furthermore, since using the range taught by Qiu et al is one of finite solutions to control the depth a 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))
Regarding claim 17, Chen et al in view of Mueller 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 a 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))
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pub no. 2023/0027079 A1) in view of Mueller (US Pub no. 2015/0027522 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Li (US pub no. 2025/0143008 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Chen et al as modified by Mueller et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the silicon oxide layer , is deposited on the first surface by a method of plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition, low-pressure chemical vapor deposition, thermal oxidation, or chain oxidation and then the doped layer and the mask layer are deposited on the silicon oxide layer by a method
of plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition or low-pressure chemical vapor deposition.
However, Li et al discloses wherein silicon oxide layer , is deposited on the first surface by a method of plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition, low-pressure chemical vapor deposition, and then doped layer and the mask layer are deposited on the silicon oxide layer by a method of plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition or low-pressure chemical vapor deposition[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 Chen et al & Mueller et al with the teachings of plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition and low-pressure chemical vapor deposition methods taught by Li 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) 8-10 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pub no. 2023/0027079 A1) in view of Mueller (US Pub no. 2015/0027522 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Breus (CN 113841257 A).
Regarding claim 8, Chen et al as modified by Mueller et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 and Mueller et al further teaches wherein the texturing treatment comprises: placing the pre-treated silicon wafer substrate into the texturing liquid for the texturing treatment to prepare the silicon wafer substrate with a textured surface[0025-0026] but fails to teach texturing liquid containing the strong monobasic base at a concentration of 0.15 mol/L to 0.35 mol/L.
However, Breus et al teaches teach texturing liquid containing the strong monobasic base at a concentration(claim 5 pp. 16) but fails to teach 0.15 mol/L to 0.35 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 0.15 mol/L to 0.35 mol/L through routine experimentation since [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 ben obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Chen et al & Mueller et al with the teachings of Breus et al to provide higher efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, Chen et al disclose after preparing the silicon wafer substrate(10) with the textured surface, further comprising: sequentially forming a first passivation film (40)and a first anti-reflection film(40) on the first surface of the silicon wafer substrate(10) having the textured surface[0161].
Regarding claim 10, Chen et al discloses after preparing the silicon wafer substrate(10) with the textured surface, further comprising: sequentially forming a second passivation film(50) and a second anti-reflection film (50)on the second
surface of the silicon wafer substrate(10) having the textured surface[0161].
Regarding claim 18, Breus et al discloses wherein a time of the texturing treatment(pp.6 para 2) but fails to teach 400 s to 600 s. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve 400 s to 600 s through routine experimentation to achieve optimal target parameters. [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).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pub no. 2023/0027079 A1) in view of Mueller (US Pub no. 2015/0027522 A1) Breus (CN 113841257 A).as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Esturo-Breton (US Pub no. 2011/0214727 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Chen et al as modified by Mueller et al & Breus et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 9 . Chen et al further teaches 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 Chen et al , Mueller et al , and Breus 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)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 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.
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