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
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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 16-18, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2014/0299187) in view of Seo et al. (US 2012/0247548) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2011/0100459).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses a solar cell (see Figure 1), comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (110) including a first surface, a second surface opposite to the first surface, and a side surface (see Figure 1);
a tunnel layer (44) on the first surface of the semiconductor substrate (see Figure 1);
a first conductive type semiconductor region (30a) on the tunnel layer (see Figure 1);
an emitter region (20a) on the second surface opposite to the first surface (front surface; see Figure 1);
a first passivation film (31) on the first conductive type semiconductor region (see Figure 1);
a first electrode (34) connected to the first conductive type semiconductor region through an opening in the first passivation film (see Figure 1);
a second passivation film (21) on the emitter region (see Figure 1);
an anti-reflection layer (22) on the second passivation film (see Figure 1);
an isolation portion for preventing a contact between the first conductive type semiconductor region and the emitter region (it is disclosed the tunnel layer and back surface field area may be formed in an entire area except the periphery region or isolation region; [0056] and [0062]),
wherein the isolation portion is not covered with the tunnel layer and the first conductive type semiconductor region, and is in the side surface and an edge portion of the first surface of the semiconductor substrate (as set forth above; periphery region includes the edge and at least part of the side surface to ensure isolation); and
wherein the first conductive type semiconductor region includes an electrode forming region corresponding to at least part of the first electrode (see Figure 1).
While modified Chang does not expressly disclose the second passivation film, and the anti-reflection layer each includes a side portion formed on the side surface of the semiconductor substrate, the reference discloses the emitter area 20 forming a pn junction with the base area 110 so that when light is emitted to the pn junction, electrons created by photoelectric effect are moved to a back surface for collection to generate electricity ([0040]) and the first passivation film 21 and the first anti-reflective film 22 are formed on the emitter area to passivate defects present in the emitter area and to reduce reflectivity of light incident upon the front surface of the semiconductor substrate ([0052]).
Seo discloses a solar cell comprising an emitter layer (EM), anti reflection layer (ARC) and passivation layer (PSV) on the side surface of the semiconductor substrate (see Figure 1).
Therefore, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to appreciate incident light may shine on part of the sides of the solar cell and would be motivated to form the first tunneling layer 42, emitter area 20, first passivation film 21 and the first anti-reflective film 22 on at least a portion of the side surface of the semiconductor substrate for enhanced generation of electricity for light that impinges on the sides of the solar cell.
Modified Chang further discloses the passivation film 31 passivates defects in the back surface field area 30 and removes recombination sites of minority carriers ([0064]).
Yoon discloses forming a first passivation film (160) and a second passivation film (130) on the side surface of a semiconductor substrate (110) of a solar cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the first passivation film on the side surface of the semiconductor substrate to further passivate the side surface of the semiconductor substrate from recombination of minority carriers, as set forth above.
Modified Chang does not expressly disclose the side portion of the second passivation film and the side portion of the anti-reflection layer are located between the side portion of the first passivation film and the side surface of the semiconductor substrate, but the reference discloses the formation order may be varied ([0150]).
It would have been obvious to have formed the emitter region, the second passivation film and the anti-reflection layer prior to the formation of the first passivation film in the device of modified Chang, as the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946).
Regarding claim 2, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a first boundary surface in which the first conductive type semiconductor region and the first electrode come into contact with each other (see Figure 1); and
a second boundary surface in which the first conductive type semiconductor region and the first passivation film come into contact with each other (see Figure 1),
wherein the first boundary surface is arranged closer to the semiconductor substrate than the second boundary surface (as set forth above).
Modified Chang does not expressly disclose a difference between a height of the first boundary surface and a height of the second boundary surface ranges from 1 nm to 20 nm.
As the quality of the contact between the first electrode and the first conductive type semiconductor layer and the efficiency of the first electrode at conducting electricity generated from the solar cell are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said difference between a height of the first boundary surface and a height of the second boundary surface as recited in the claim, with said quality of contact and efficiency of the first electrode both changing as the height difference is varied, the precise difference between a height of the first boundary surface and a height of the second boundary surface would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed difference between a height of the first boundary surface and a height of the second boundary surface cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the difference between a height of the first boundary surface and a height of the second boundary surface in the apparatus of modified Chang to obtain the desired balance between the quality of contact and efficiency of the first electrode (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable amount of time for the firing process in order to form a good contact between the first electrode and the first conductive type semiconductor region, as taught by Tanner, such that the depth of the penetration of the first electrode into the first conductive type semiconductor region is at least 1 nm, where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference (between 1 nm and 20 nm) because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. 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); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 16, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Regarding limitations directed to specific properties and features of the plurality of metal crystals, such that a length of the plurality of metal crystals in a direction from the first electrode to the tunnel layer is 2/3 or less of a thickness of the first conductive type semiconductor region, it is noted that once the solar cell and method of making the solar cell are disclosed to be substantially the same as the solar cell as described in the instant specification in paragraphs [0090], [0234], and [0367], it will, inherently, display the recited properties and features. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 17, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the first conductive type semiconductor region includes a polycrystalline silicon material ([0061]), and the emitter region includes a single crystal silicon material ([0050]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a second electrode (24) connected to the emitter region through an opening in the second passivation film and the anti-reflection layer (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 21, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the first surface of the semiconductor substrate is not covered with the second passivation film and/or the anti-reflection layer (as set forth above, the second passivation film and/or the anti-reflection layer was not recited to cover the first surface and only at least a portion of the side surface of the semiconductor substrate).
Regarding claim 22, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Seo further discloses an edge of the second passivation film and/or an edge of the anti-reflection layer is flush with the first surface of the semiconductor substrate (see ARC in Figure 1).
As modified Chang is not limited to any specific examples of the coverage of the second passivation film and as a front passivation film extending on the side surface of the semiconductor substrate to be flush with the back surface of the semiconductor substrate was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Seo above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have extended the second passivation film along the side surface of the semiconductor substrate to be flush with the back surface of the semiconductor substrate of modified Chang, so that the entire side surface and not just a portion of the side surface can be passivated. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 23, Chang discloses a solar cell (see Figure 1), comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (110) including a first surface, a second surface opposite to the first surface, and a side surface (see Figure 1);
a tunnel layer (44) on the first surface of the semiconductor substrate (see Figure 1);
a first conductive type semiconductor region (30a) on the tunnel layer (see Figure 1);
an emitter region (20a) on the second surface opposite to the first surface (front surface; see Figure 1);
a first passivation film (31) on the first conductive type semiconductor region (see Figure 1);
a second passivation film (21) on the emitter region (see Figure 1);
an anti-reflection layer (22) on the second passivation film (see Figure 1);
an isolation portion for preventing a contact between the first conductive type semiconductor region and the emitter region (it is disclosed the tunnel layer and back surface field area may be formed in an entire area except the periphery region or isolation region; [0056] and [0062]), and
wherein the isolation portion is not covered with the tunnel layer and the first conductive type semiconductor region, and is in the side surface and an edge portion of the first surface of the semiconductor substrate (as set forth above; periphery region includes the edge and at least part of the side surface to ensure isolation).
While modified Chang does not expressly disclose the second passivation film, and the anti-reflection layer each includes a side portion formed on the side surface of the semiconductor substrate, the reference discloses the emitter area 20 forming a pn junction with the base area 110 so that when light is emitted to the pn junction, electrons created by photoelectric effect are moved to a back surface for collection to generate electricity ([0040]) and the first passivation film 21 and the first anti-reflective film 22 are formed on the emitter area to passivate defects present in the emitter area and to reduce reflectivity of light incident upon the front surface of the semiconductor substrate ([0052]).
Seo discloses a solar cell comprising an emitter layer (EM), anti reflection layer (ARC) and passivation layer (PSV) on the side surface of the semiconductor substrate (see Figure 1).
Therefore, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to appreciate incident light may shine on part of the sides of the solar cell and would be motivated to form the first tunneling layer 42, emitter area 20, first passivation film 21 and the first anti-reflective film 22 on at least a portion of the side surface of the semiconductor substrate for enhanced generation of electricity for light that impinges on the sides of the solar cell.
Modified Chang further discloses the passivation film 31 passivates defects in the back surface field area 30 and removes recombination sites of minority carriers ([0064]).
Yoon discloses forming a first passivation film (160) and a second passivation film (130) on the side surface of a semiconductor substrate (110) of a solar cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the first passivation film on the side surface of the semiconductor substrate to further passivate the side surface of the semiconductor substrate from recombination of minority carriers, as set forth above.
Modified Chang does not expressly disclose the side portion of the second passivation film and the side portion of the anti-reflection layer are located between the side portion of the first passivation film and the side surface of the semiconductor substrate, but the reference discloses the formation order may be varied ([0150]).
It would have been obvious to have formed the emitter region, the second passivation film and the anti-reflection layer prior to the formation of the first passivation film in the device of modified Chang, as the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946).
Claims 4-9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2014/0299187) in view of Seo et al. (US 2012/0247548) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2011/0100459) in view of Hama et al. (US 2011/0143486) in view of Tanner (US 2013/0233379).
Regarding claims 4-6, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Chang does not expressly disclose a plurality of metal crystals, the plurality of metal crystals are extracted from the first electrode, and the plurality of metal crystals are located in the electrode forming region, but the reference discloses the electrode may be formed through applying a paste and then performing fire through, laser firing contact or the like ([0152]).
Hama discloses printing an electrode material paste (7a/6a) on a passivation layer (3/4) (see Figure 2-8), wherein the electrode material paste is fired at a temperature between 750 oC to 900 oC to form the electrode ([0069]).
As modified Chang is not limited to any specific examples of the firing temperature of the electrode material and as a temperature between 750 oC to 900 oC was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Hama above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable temperature to form the electrodes, including a firing temperature between 750 oC to 900 oC in the device of modified Yoon. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference (between 750 oC and 870 oC) because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. 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); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Tanner discloses the distance local contacts extend past the passivation layer in a solar cell is dependent upon the diameter of the openings as well as the length of time and temperature of the heating process used to form the contacts ([0020]), where the distance can be reduced by increasing the contact area between the substrate and the back contact ([0021]).
As the quality of the contact between the first electrode and the first conductive type semiconductor region and the efficiency of the first electrode at conducting electricity generated from the solar cell are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said duration of the firing process and thus, the amount of depression the first electrode is formed within the electrode forming region as recited in the claim, with said quality of contact and efficiency of the first electrode both changing as the duration of the firing process (and therefore the amount of depression within the electrode forming region) is varied, the precise duration of the firing process (and therefore the amount of depression within the electrode forming region) would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed duration of the firing process (and therefore the amount of depression within the electrode forming region) cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the duration of the firing process (and therefore the amount of depression within the electrode forming region) in the apparatus of Chang to obtain the desired balance between the quality of contact and efficiency of the first electrode (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding limitations directed to specific properties and features of the contact area in which the first electrode is connected to the first conductive type semiconductor region, wherein the plurality of metal crystals are not formed in a non- forming region which belongs to the first conductive type semiconductor region and in which the first electrode is not formed, wherein the plurality of metal crystals are not in the tunnel layer, wherein the plurality of metal crystals are in direct contact with the first electrode, the plurality of metal crystals are not formed in a non- forming region which belongs to the first conductive type semiconductor region and in which the first electrode is not formed, wherein the plurality of metal crystals are not in the tunnel layer, and wherein the plurality of metal crystals are spaced apart from the first electrode, it is noted that once the solar cell is disclosed to comprise a passivation film and a conductive type semiconductor region and the first electrode is formed through a firing temperature of less than 870 oC, as set forth above, and therefore is substantially the same as the solar cell of claims 4-6 as described in the instant specification in paragraphs [0030]-[0032], [0090], [0234], and [0367], it will, inherently, display the recited properties and features. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 7, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a plurality of first finger electrodes (34a) spaced apart from each other and extended in parallel in a first direction (see Figure 2); and
a first bus bar (34b) connected to the plurality of first finger electrodes (see Figure 2);
wherein the first electrode is at least one of the plurality of first finger electrodes and/or the first bus bar ([0069]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the plurality of first finger electrodes penetrate the first passivation film and are depressed into the first conductive type semiconductor region, and the first bus bar penetrates the first passivation film and is depressed into the first conductive type semiconductor region (as set forth above),
wherein the electrode forming region of the first conductive type semiconductor region includes a finger forming region and a bus bar forming region (as set forth above), and
wherein metal crystals extracted from the plurality of first finger electrodes are formed in the finger forming region, and metal crystals extracted from the first bus bar are formed in the bus bar forming region (it is inherent the metal crystals from the finger electrodes would be in the finger forming region and the metal crystals from the bus bar would be in the bus bar forming region, as set forth above).
Regarding claim 9, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the electrode is formed from paste (as set forth above), but the reference does not expressly disclose an amount of metal material per unit volume in the plurality of first finger electrodes is identical with an amount of metal material per unit volume in the first bus bar.
Hama further discloses the use of a paste containing aluminum and glass for the back electrode ([0003]), wherein a metal material included in the paste for the finger electrodes is identical with an amount of metal material in the paste for the bus bar ([0067]).
As modified Chang is not limited to any specific examples of the composition of the paste used to form the first finger electrodes and the first busbar and the amount of material used for the first electrode and as the amount of the metal material used for the first electrode for the plurality of first finger electrodes and the first bus bar being identical were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Hama above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable amount of metal for the plurality of first finger electrodes and the first bus bar, including identical amounts in the device of modified Chang. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 15, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Regarding limitations directed to specific properties and features of the plurality of metal crystals, such that they include first metal crystals in a direct contact with the first electrode, and second metal crystals spaced apart from the first electrode, it is noted that once the solar cell and method of making the solar cell are disclosed to be substantially the same as the solar cell as described in the instant specification in paragraphs [0090], [0234], and [0367], it will, inherently, display the recited properties and features. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2014/0299187) in view of Seo et al. (US 2012/0247548) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2011/0100459) in view of Hama et al. (US 2011/0143486) in view of Tanner (US 2013/0233379) in view of Anderson et al. (US 2010/0294361).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the plurality of first finger electrodes penetrate the first passivation film and are depressed into the first conductive type semiconductor region (as set forth above), wherein the electrode forming region of the first conductive type semiconductor region includes a finger forming region (as set forth above), but the reference does not expressly disclose the first bus bar does not penetrate the first passivation film but is formed on the first conductive type semiconductor region, wherein the plurality of metal crystals is formed only in the finger forming region, and wherein the plurality of first finger electrodes and the first bus bar have different compositions.
Anderson discloses the use of silver paste comprising 2 wt% glass frit and 81 wt% silver powder as the finger electrodes ([0066] and [0067]) and the use of a silver paste comprising 0.5 wt% glass frit and 85 wt% silver powder as the busbar electrode ([0068]), where it can have poor or no fire-through capability ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected different compositions for the finger electrodes and the bus bar, where the bus bar electrode has poor or no fire-through capability in the device of modified Chang, as taught by Anderson, so that the busbars can be non-contact busbars or floating busbars ([0063]).
It is noted that the plurality of metal crystals would only be formed in the finger forming region due to the finger electrodes being fired through the first passivation film, as set forth above.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2014/0299187) in view of Seo et al. (US 2012/0247548) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2011/0100459) in view of Hama et al. (US 2011/0143486) in view of Tanner (US 2013/0233379) in view of Yoshimine (WO 2013/094052; see English machine translation).
Regarding claim 12, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the electrode is formed from paste (as set forth above), but the reference does not expressly disclose an amount of metal material per unit volume in the plurality of first finger electrodes is greater than an amount of metal material per unit volume in the first bus bar, the amount of metal material per unit volume in the plurality of first finger electrodes ranges from 80 wt% to 95 wt%, and amount of metal material per unit volume in the first bus bar ranges from 60 wt% to 80 wt%.
Yoshimine discloses the desirability to have flexibility in the bus bar electrodes compared to the finger electrodes by increasing the amount of binder resin in the composition and the desirability to reduce resistance loss of the finger electrodes by increasing the amount of conductive particles in the composition ([0027]), where flexibility in the bus bar electrode is desired as it is connected to wiring or interconnectors as they are easily deformed by pressure applied during crimping of the wiring, such that contact area and adhesion with the wiring member can be improved ([0028]).
Yoshimine further discloses the amount of metal material per unit volume in the plurality of first finger electrodes ranges from 80 wt% to 95 wt%, and amount of metal material per unit volume in the first bus bar ranges from 60 wt% to 80 wt% (it is disclosed the content of the conductive filler of the bus bar is less than 85 wt% and the content of the conductive filler of the finger electrode is 85 wt% or more; [0027]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected to incorporate an amount of metal material per unit volume in the plurality of first finger electrodes to be greater than an amount of metal material per unit volume in the first bus bar, as taught by Yoshimine, so that resistance loss of the finger electrode can be reduced, as set forth above.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference of the amount of metal material in the first finger electrodes and the first bus bar because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. 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); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2014/0299187) in view of Seo et al. (US 2012/0247548) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2011/0100459) in view of Hama et al. (US 2011/0143486) in view of Tanner (US 2013/0233379) in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0020747).
Regarding claim 14, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the plurality of first finger electrodes have a single layer structure (as set forth above), but the reference does not expressly disclose the first bus bar has a double layer structure.
Kim discloses a solar cell (100; see Figure 2) comprising an electrode structure (24) comprising a plurality of finger electrodes (24a) and a bus bar (24b) connected to the plurality of first finger electrodes (see Figure 2), wherein the bus bar has a double layer structure (see electrode structure in Figure 1, where it has a barrier layer 242 and a conductive layer 244).
As modified Chang is not limited to any specific examples of the bus bar electrode structure and as bus bar electrodes having a double layer structure were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Kim above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any known structure for the bus bar electrode, including a double layer structure in the device of modified Chang. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result. Additionally, the use of a double layer structure allows a cheaper metal to be used on top of layer of high electrical property while acting as a double-diffusion prevention, and shading loss can be minimized and efficiency enhanced by reducing alignment errors and the widths of the electrodes, which also reduces the overall manufacturing cost ([0056] and [0102]-[0104]), as disclosed by Kim.
Claims 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2014/0299187) in view of Seo et al. (US 2012/0247548) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2011/0100459) in view of Jin et al. (US 2013/0056051).
Regarding claim 20, modified Chang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the first passivation film covers the first surface of the semiconductor substrate and the isolation portion together (as set forth above, the passivation film is formed on the back surface field area 30 to passivate defects in the back surface field area and to reduce recombination of carriers ([0063][0064]), such that it would cover the first surface of the semiconductor substrate that is exposed and the isolation portion in the edge and side surface of the semiconductor substrate, but the reference does not expressly disclose a width of the isolation portion is 1 nm to 1 mm.
Jin discloses a separation between the edge of the rear surface of the substrate and the back surface field layer, wherein the gap is desired to be between 2 and 300 microns ([0076]).
As modified Chang is not limited to any specific examples of the isolation portion width and as an isolation distance between 2 and 300 microns was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Jin above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable distance for the isolation portion, including a distance between 2 and 300 microns in the device of modified Chang. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, 20, and 23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7, 9-22 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104 in view of Hama et al. (US 2011/0143486) and in view of Tanner (US 2013/0233379) in view of Chang et al. (US 2014/0299187).
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-22 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104 discloses a solar cell comprising a solar cell comprising an isolation portion, a first passivation film, a second passivation film, and a semiconductor substrate. Claims 1-4, 7, 9-22 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104 differs from claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, 20, and 23 in that they fail to disclose the plurality of first finger electrodes are depressed into the first conductive type semiconductor region, and the first bus bar is depressed into the first conductive type semiconductor region.
Hama discloses printing an electrode material paste (7a/6a) on a passivation layer (3/4) (see Figure 2-8), wherein the electrode material paste is fired at a temperature between 750 oC to 900 oC to form the electrode ([0069]).
As claims 1-4, 7, 9-22 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104 are not limited to any specific examples of the firing temperature of the electrode material and as a temperature between 750 oC to 900 oC was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Hama above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable temperature to form the electrodes, including a firing temperature between 750 oC to 900 oC in the device of claims 1-4, 7, 9-22 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference (between 750 oC and 870 oC) because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. 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); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Additionally, Tanner discloses the distance local contacts extend past the passivation layer in a solar cell is dependent upon the diameter of the openings as well as the length of time and temperature of the heating process used to form the contacts ([0020]), where the distance can be reduced by increasing the contact area between the substrate and the back contact ([0021]).
As the quality of the contact between the first electrode and the first conductive type semiconductor region and the efficiency of the first electrode at conducting electricity generated from the solar cell are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said duration of the firing process and thus, the amount of depression the first electrode is formed within the electrode forming region as recited in the claim, with said quality of contact and efficiency of the first electrode both changing as the duration of the firing process (and therefore the amount of depression within the electrode forming region) is varied, the precise duration of the firing process (and therefore the amount of depression within the electrode forming region) would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed duration of the firing process (and therefore the amount of depression within the electrode forming region) cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the duration of the firing process (and therefore the amount of depression within the electrode forming region) in the apparatus of claims 1-4, 7, 9-22 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104 to obtain the desired balance between the quality of contact and efficiency of the first electrode (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-22 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104 differs from claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, 20 and 23 in that they fail to disclose the isolation portion is in the side surface and an edge portion of the first surface of the semiconductor substrate.
Chang discloses an isolation portion for preventing a contact between the first conductive type semiconductor region and the emitter region (it is disclosed the tunnel layer and back surface field area may be formed in an entire area except the periphery region or isolation region; [0056] and [0062]),
wherein the isolation portion is in the side surface and an edge portion of the first surface of the semiconductor substrate (as set forth above; periphery region includes the edge and at least part of the side surface to ensure isolation).
As claims 1-4, 7, 9-22 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104 are not limited to any specific examples of the isolation structure for the first and second conductive type semiconductor regions and as an isolation portion is in the side surface and an edge portion of the first surface of the semiconductor substrate was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Chang above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable isolation structure configuration in the device of claims 1-4, 7, 9-22 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,722,104. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, 20 and 23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13-15 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009 in view of Hama et al. (US 2011/0143486) and in view of Tanner (US 2013/0233379) in view of Chang et al. (US 2014/0299187).
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13-15 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009 discloses a solar cell comprising a solar cell comprising an isolation portion, a first passivation film, a second passivation film, and a semiconductor substrate. Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13-15 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009 differs from claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, 20 and 23 in that they fail to disclose the plurality of first finger electrodes are depressed into the first conductive type semiconductor region, and the first bus bar is depressed into the first conductive type semiconductor region.
Hama discloses printing an electrode material paste (7a/6a) on a passivation layer (3/4) (see Figure 2-8), wherein the electrode material paste is fired at a temperature between 750 oC to 900 oC to form the electrode ([0069]).
As claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13-15 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009 are not limited to any specific examples of the firing temperature of the electrode material and as a temperature between 750 oC to 900 oC was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Hama above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable temperature to form the electrodes, including a firing temperature between 750 oC to 900 oC in the device of claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13-15 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference (between 750 oC and 870 oC) because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. 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); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Additionally, Tanner discloses the distance local contacts extend past the passivation layer in a solar cell is dependent upon the diameter of the openings as well as the length of time and temperature of the heating process used to form the contacts ([0020]), where the distance can be reduced by increasing the contact area between the substrate and the back contact ([0021]).
As the quality of the contact between the first electrode and the first conductive type semiconductor region and the efficiency of the first electrode at conducting electricity generated from the solar cell are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said duration of the firing process and thus, the amount of depression the first electrode is formed within the electrode forming region as recited in the claim, with said quality of contact and efficiency of the first electrode both changing as the duration of the firing process (and therefore the amount of depression within the electrode forming region) is varied, the precise duration of the firing process (and therefore the amount of depression within the electrode forming region) would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed duration of the firing process (and therefore the amount of depression within the electrode forming region) cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the duration of the firing process (and therefore the amount of depression within the electrode forming region) in the apparatus of claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13-15 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009 to obtain the desired balance between the quality of contact and efficiency of the first electrode (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13-15 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009 differs from claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, 20 and 23 in that they fail to disclose the isolation portion is in the side surface and an edge portion of the first surface of the semiconductor substrate.
Chang discloses an isolation portion for preventing a contact between the first conductive type semiconductor region and the emitter region (it is disclosed the tunnel layer and back surface field area may be formed in an entire area except the periphery region or isolation region; [0056] and [0062]),
wherein the isolation portion is in the side surface and an edge portion of the first surface of the semiconductor substrate (as set forth above; periphery region includes the edge and at least part of the side surface to ensure isolation).
As claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13-15 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009 are not limited to any specific examples of the isolation structure for the first and second conductive type semiconductor regions and as an isolation portion is in the side surface and an edge portion of the first surface of the semiconductor substrate was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Chang above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable isolation structure configuration in the device of claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13-15 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,230,009. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, 20 and 23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-15 and 18-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,349,502 in view of Chang et al. (US 2014/0299187) in view of Seo et al. (US 2012/0247548) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2011/0100459).
Claims 13-15 and 18-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,349,502 discloses a solar cell comprising a solar cell comprising a first passivation film, a tunnel layer, and a semiconductor substrate. Claims 13-15 and 18-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,349,502 differs from claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, 20 and 23 in that they fail to disclose an isolation portion for preventing a contact between the first conductive type semiconductor region and the second conductive type semiconductor region, wherein the isolation portion is not covered with the tunnel layer and the first conductive type semiconductor region and is in the side surface and an edge portion of the first surface of the semiconductor substrate.
Chang discloses an isolation portion for preventing a contact between the first conductive type semiconductor region and the emitter region (it is disclosed the tunnel layer and back surface field area may be formed in an entire area except the periphery region or isolation region; [0056] and [0062]),
wherein the isolation portion is not covered with the tunnel layer and the first conductive type semiconductor region, and is in the side surface and an edge portion of the first surface of the semiconductor substrate (as set forth above; periphery region includes the edge and at least part of the side surface to ensure isolation).
As claims 13-15 and 18-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,349,502 are not limited to any specific examples of the isolation structure for the first and second conductive type semiconductor regions and as an isolation portion not covered with the tunnel layer and the first conductive type semiconductor region and is in the side surface and an edge portion of the first surface of the semiconductor substrate was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Chang above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable isolation structure configuration in the device of claims 13-15 and 18-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,349,502. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claims 13-15 and 18-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,349,502 differs from claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, 20 and 23 in that they fail to disclose the second passivation film and the anti-reflection layer each include a side portion formed on the side surface of the semiconductor substrate.
Seo discloses a solar cell comprising an emitter layer (EM), anti reflection layer (ARC) and passivation layer (PSV) on the side surface of the semiconductor substrate (see Figure 1).
Therefore, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to appreciate incident light may shine on part of the sides of the solar cell and would be motivated to form the first tunneling layer 42, emitter area 20, first passivation film 21 and the first anti-reflective film 22 on at least a portion of the side surface of the semiconductor substrate for enhanced generation of electricity for light that impinges on the sides of the solar cell.
Claims 13-15 and 18-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,349,502 differs from claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, 20 and 23 in that they fail to disclose the first passivation film includes a side portion formed on the side surface of the semiconductor substrate.
Yoon discloses forming a first passivation film (160) and a second passivation film (130) on the side surface of a semiconductor substrate (110) of a solar cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the first passivation film on the side surface of the semiconductor substrate to further passivate the side surface of the semiconductor substrate from recombination of minority carriers, as set forth above.
Claims 13-15 and 18-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,349,502 differs from claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-18, 20 and 23 in that they fail to disclose the side portion of the second passivation film and the side portion of the anti-reflection layer are located between the side portion of the first passivation film and the side surface of the semiconductor substrate.
It would have been obvious to have formed the emitter region, the second passivation film and the anti-reflection layer prior to the formation of the first passivation film in the device of claims 13-15 and 18-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,349,502, as the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4-12, 14-18, 20-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722