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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the last line of claim 1 appears to contain a typographical error with regard to the recitation “such that no diffusion layer is remained.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 6-7, 11, 13-14, 16-17, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, Mao et al. (CN 218585994 U – see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Mao discloses a solar cell (Fig. 4) comprising: a semiconductor substrate ([n0037]) including a first surface and a second surface that are opposite to each other (100 in Fig. 4), the semiconductor substrate including a plurality of passivation regions and a plurality of passivated contact regions (shown in annotated Fig. 4 below), the plurality of passivation regions and the plurality of passivated contact regions being alternately arranged along a first direction, the first direction being perpendicular to a thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate (shown in annotated Fig. 4 below); a plurality of passivating contact structures disposed on the second surface and correspondingly distributed on the plurality of passivated contact regions (120 in annotated Fig. 4 below), each passivating contact structure including an electrically conductive passivation layer (120 in annotated Fig. 4 below satisfies the limitation “an electrically conductive passivation layer”); a dielectric layer at least covering the second surface in the passivation regions (170 in annotated Fig. 4 below; [n0060]; it is noted that the limitation “covering” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components); a plurality of first electrodes disposed on the passivating contact structures and located at a side of the passivating contact structure away from the semiconductor substrate, each passivating contact structure being provided with at least one first electrode (160 in annotated Fig. 4 below); and a plurality of first diffusion layers located within the semiconductor substrate ([n0047]; 150 in annotated Fig. 4 below), wherein the first diffusion layers are correspondingly distributed in the passivation contact regions, and each first diffusion layer is in contact with the second surface (150 in annotated Fig. 4 below in relation to second surface of 100); wherein a first distance is defined as a distance between the second surface and the first surface in the passivation regions, and a second distance is defined as a distance between the second surface and the first surface in the passivated contact regions, and the second distance is greater than the first distance (shown in annotated Fig. 4 below); wherein a difference between the second distance and the first distance is greater than or equal to a size of each first diffusion layer in the thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate (difference between first and second distance in annotated Fig. 4 below in relation to thickness of 150), such that no diffusion layer remains in each passivation region of the semiconductor substrate (passivation regions do not contain a diffusion layer as shown in annotated Fig. 4 below).
It is noted that if the limitation “wherein a difference between the second distance and the first distance is greater than or equal to a size of each first diffusion layer in the thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate” is not satisfied by the relative dimensions depicted in annotated Fig. 4 below, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the solar cell of Mao such that a difference between the second distance and the first distance is greater than or equal to a size of each first diffusion layer in the thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
[AltContent: textbox (passivation regions)]
[AltContent: textbox (second sub-surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (connecting surface)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (non-contact surfaces)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first sub-surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (passivated contact regions)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first distance)][AltContent: textbox (second distance)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (passivation region)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
338
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Mao, or modified Mao, discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Mao further discloses the second surface is a back surface ([n0038]; it is noted that the limitation “back surface” is dependent on the spatial orientation of the device).
Regarding claim 7, Mao, or modified Mao, discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Mao further discloses a roughness of a second surface in the passivation regions is less than a roughness of the second surface in the passivated contact regions ([n0054]).
Regarding claim 11, Mao, or modified Mao, discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Mao further discloses each passivation contact structure further includes a tunnel layer disposed between the electrically conductive passivation layer and the substrate ([n0035]; 110 between 120 and 100 in Fig. 4); wherein along a direction from a second surface to a first surface, a dimension of an electrically conductive passivation layer (120 in Fig. 4; [n0035]) in the first direction gradually decreases (120 shown in annotated Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 13, Mao, or modified Mao, discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Mao further discloses the dielectric layer further covers surfaces of the passivated contact structures away from the semiconductor substrate (170 in relation to 100 in the passivated contact regions as shown in annotated Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 14, Mao, or modified Mao, discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Mao further discloses the second surface of the semiconductor substrate includes first sub-surfaces, second sub-surfaces, and connecting surfaces (shown in annotated Fig. 4 above); the first sub-surfaces are located in the passivation regions, the second sub-surfaces are located in the passivated contact regions (shown in annotated Fig. 4 above), and the first sub-surfaces and the second sub-surfaces are connected by the connecting surfaces adjacent thereto (shown in annotated Fig. 4 above); and the dielectric layer further covers the connecting surfaces (170 in annotated Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 16, Mao, or modified Mao, discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Mao further discloses a material of the dielectric layer includes aluminum oxide ([n0060]).
Regarding claim 17, Mao, or modified Mao, discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Mao further discloses the electrically conductive passivation layer includes a doped polysilicon layer ([n0040]) doped with an n-type doping element ([n0045]).
Regarding claim 20, Mao, or modified Mao, discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Mao further discloses a photovoltaic module comprising the solar cell ([n0001], [n0067]).
Regarding claim 22, Mao, or modified Mao, discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Mao further discloses each passivating contact structure as a whole has a dimension in the first direction, and the dimension in the first direction gradually decreases along a direction from the second surface to the first surface (width of 170 in the passivating contact region in annotated Fig. 4 above decreases along a direction from the second surface to the first surface).
It is further noted that if Mao does not explicitly disclose each passivating contact structure as a whole has a dimension in the first direction, and the dimension in the first direction gradually decreases along a direction from the second surface to the first surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each passivating contact structure of Mao such that as a whole, a dimension in the first direction gradually decreases along a direction from the second surface to the first surface because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 3, 8-9, 12, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, Mao et al. (CN 218585994 U – see attached machine translation) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above.
Regarding claim 3, Mao, or modified Mao, discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Mao does not explicitly disclose a difference between the second distance and the first distance is greater than 1 micron, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first distance such that the distance between the second distance and the first distance is greater than 1 micron because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 8, Mao, or modified Mao, discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Mao does disclose a plurality of recesses defined in the second surface (10 in Fig. 4), the plurality of recesses including a first recess (12 in Fig. 4) and a second recess (11 in Fig. 4), Mao does not explicitly disclose the first recess is a deepest recess in the passivation regions, and the second recess is a deepest recess in the passivated contact regions, the first recess is shallower than the second recess.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the deepest recess in the passivation region such that it is shallower than the deepest recess in the passivation contact regions because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 9, modified Mao discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Mao further discloses an inner size of the first recess is greater than an inner size of the second recess (inner size of 12 in relation to inner size of 11 in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Mao, or modified Mao, discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Mao does disclose each passivating contact structure is provided with one first electrode (160 in Fig. 4); the electrically conductive passivation layer includes a first face adjacent to the tunnel layer and a second face away from the tunnel layer (lower and upper faces of 120 in Fig. 4); Mao does not explicitly disclose a dimension of the first face along the first direction, a dimension of the second face along the first direction, and a dimension of the first electrode along the first direction satisfy the relationship W2>W1>W3 wherein W1 is the dimension of the first face in the first direction, W2 is the dimension of the second face in the first direction, and W3 is the dimension of the first electrode in the first direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each passivating contact structure of Mao such that a dimension of the first face along the first direction, a dimension of the second face along the first direction, and a dimension of the first electrode along the first direction satisfy the relationship W2>W1>W3, because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 23, Mao, or modified Mao, discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Mao does not explicitly disclose each passivating contact structure has a first end and a second end, the first end is opposite to the second end and is adjacent to the semiconductor substrate, the second end is away from the semiconductor substrate, and the first end is smaller than the second end along the first direction, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each passivating contact structure of Mao such that the first end is smaller than the second end along the first direction because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Additionally, such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al. (CN 218585994 U – see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 17 above, in view of Stodolny et al. (US 2020/0287066).
Regarding claim 18, Mao, or modified Mao, discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Mao does not explicitly disclose the doped polysilicon layer is further doped with one or more of carbon, nitrogen, or oxygen.
Stodolny discloses a solar cell (Fig. 1A) and further discloses a doped polysilicon layer ([0013]) containing carbon ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the doped polysilicon layer of Mao with carbon, as disclosed by Stodolny, because as evidenced by Stodolny, the use of a doped polysilicon layer containing carbon as a passivating layer in a solar cell amounts to the use of a known material/component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when including carbon in the doped polysilicon layer of Mao based on the teaching of Stodolny.
It is noted that the limitation “doped” is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is made, and said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al. (CN 218585994 U – see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 17 above, in view of Lin et al. (CN 217425526U – see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 19, Mao, or modified Mao, discloses all the claim limitations as
set forth above.
Mao does not explicitly disclose the electrically conductive passivation
layer further includes a silicon carbide layer disposed at a side of the doped polysilicon layer away from the semiconductor substrate.
Lin discloses a solar cell ([n0001]) and further discloses an electrically conductive passivation layer including a silicon carbide layer and a polysilicon layer ([n0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the electrically conductive passivation layer of Mao with a silicon carbide layer and a polysilicon layer, as disclosed by Lin, because as evidenced by Lin, the use of a doped layer comprised of a silicon carbide layer and a polysilicon layer in a TOPCon passivated contact structure amounts to the use of known materials in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the electrically conductive passivation layer of Mao with a silicon carbide layer and a polysilicon layer based on the teaching of Lin.
It is noted that with regard to the limitation requiring the silicon carbide layer to be disposed at a side of the doped polysilicon layer away from the semiconductor substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to place the silicon carbide layer of modified Mao on a side of the doped polysilicon layer away from the semiconductor substrate because such a modification amounts to a matter of design choice, with the claimed configuration being one of two limited possibilities for the arrangement of the polysilicon layer and the silicon carbide layer with respect to the semiconductor substrate. Absent a showing of criticality, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the electrically conductive passivation layer with either of the two possible configurations based on the teaching of Lin.
Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 24 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Mao does not achieve the selective formation of the diffusion region 150 only in the metal pattern regions by varying the thickness of the semiconductor substrate in different regions, and that Mao’s semiconductor substrate 100 has a substantially uniform thickness throughout. In response to Applicant’s argument, the claims do not require the formation of the diffusion region 150 by varying the thickness of the semiconductor substrate in different regions.
It is noted that Applicant’s remaining arguments are not directed to the current rejection(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights