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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grober et al. (“Microscale Contact Formation by Laser Enhanced Contact Optimization”, listed on IDS filed 4/07/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Grober discloses a metal-semiconductor contact structure in Figures 1-7,
wherein the metal- semiconductor contact structure comprises a metal electrode (Ag grid finger electrode) and a semiconductor layer (Silicon emitter layer shown in Figure 7) in contact with each other, the metal electrode has a metal element (Ag), the semiconductor layer has a semiconductor element (Silicon) and a doping element for doping the semiconductor layer (Page 29, 1st column, the emitter layer is n-type doped silicon);
a contact interface between the metal electrode and the semiconductor layer has holes and a conductive structure (the holes are the openings in the passivation layer and glass frit layer for the LECO contacts, See Figures 3-4 and 7), the holes are formed in a glass frit (SiO2+Ag glass layer, Figures 3-4 and 7 and Page 29, 2nd column), the conductive structure comprises a conductive eutectic adjacent to the semiconductor layer (Page 29, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph), and a conductive crystal (Ag crystallites) extending from the conductive eutectic into the holes (Page 29, column 2, 2nd-3rd paragraph), the conductive eutectic comprises a eutectic formed by the metal element and the semiconductor element (Page 29, column 2, 2nd paragraph, Ag-Si eutectic), the conductive crystal comprises a crystal formed by crystallization of the metal element (Ag crystallites, Page 29, column 2, 3rd paragraph);
wherein the semiconductor layer has textured pyramids (Figures 4 and 7, Page 28, 2nd column and Page 29, 1st paragraph), and each of the holes is located within a range extending outward by 2 micrometers along a direction parallel to the semiconductor layer with a tip of a corresponding textured pyramid of the textured pyramids as a center point (Page 27, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph and Page 29, 1st column, 1st paragraph, the openings for the contacts can be located at the peak of the pyramid).
Regarding claim 2, Grober discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Grober additionally discloses that the metal-semiconductor contact structure has a first conductive region and a second conductive region outside the first conductive region, the first conductive region has the holes and the conductive structure (LECO treated contact area shown in Figures 1-7), the second conductive region has the glass frit (glass layer) and metal particles (Ag precipitates) (Page 29, column 2, paragraph 3 and Figures 1-7), the glass frit (glass layer) is in contact with the semiconductor layer (silicon layer) through a portion of a passivation layer (SiN layer) on the semiconductor layer (Figure 7, Page 28 column 2); wherein the metal particles (Ag precipitates) form a direct conductive contact with the semiconductor layer (silicon) through the portion of the passivation layer (SiN) (Figures 2-4 and 7 and Page 29, column 2, paragraph 3); the metal particles and the conductive crystal have a same metal element (Page 29, column 2, paragraph 3, both crystallites and precipitate particles are Ag).
Regarding claim 3, Grober discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Grober additionally discloses that the conductive crystal (Ag crystallites) is contained in the holes (Page 29, column 2, paragraph 3, the holes are defined to contain the conductive crystal).
Regarding claim 4, Grober discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Grober additionally discloses that the conductive crystal comprises a crystalline main chain and a crystalline side chain extending from the crystalline main chain toward a direction different from a growth direction of the crystalline main chain (As discussed on Page 29, 2nd column, 3rd paragraph, silver dendrites can be formed which necessarily include a crystalline main chain and a crystalline side chain extending from the crystalline main chain in a different direction).
Regarding claim 6, Grober discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Grober additionally discloses that the metal electrode is a silver electrode and an aluminum impurity content of the silver electrode is less than 0.1 wt% (abstract and Figures 4-7, metal electrode is silver and does not contain aluminum).
Regarding claim 13, Grober discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Grober additionally discloses a solar cell, wherein the solar cell comprises the metal-semiconductor contact structure as set forth above (abstract and conclusion section).
Regarding claim 14, Grober discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Grober additionally discloses that the solar cell further comprises: a silicon substrate having a light-receiving surface with a textured surface structure (c-Si p-type substrate with pyramidal texture, see Figure 7); wherein the metal-semiconductor contact structure is provided on the light-receiving surface and/or a backlight surface of the silicon substrate (Figure 7), the semiconductor layer of the metal- semiconductor contact structure is provided close to the silicon substrate, and the semiconductor layer also has the textured surface structure (Figure 7).
Regarding claim 20, Grober discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Grober additionally discloses a photovoltaic module, wherein the photovoltaic module comprises the solar cell as set forth above (abstract and conclusion section, the claims do not require any additionally components and the disclosed solar cell satisfies the claim requirements of a “photovoltaic module”).
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grober et al. (“Microscale Contact Formation by Laser Enhanced Contact Optimization”, listed on IDS filed 4/07/2025), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Grober discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Grober additionally discloses that the diameter of the holes is less than 1 micron (1000 nm) (Page 28, 1st column, see sub-micron size point contacts which correspond to the diameter of the holes). Grober does not disclose the specifically claimed range of the hole diameter of 100 nm to 2000 nm; however, 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).
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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of Zhang (US 2022/0344528, previously cited) and Grober, alone or in combination, do not disclose, suggest or render obvious the specifically claimed solar cell of claim 16 in combination with the other claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments have overcome the rejection over the Zhang reference. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the Grober reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY A BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/LINDSEY A BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights