DETAILED ACTION
(1)
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 . This is the first office action on the merits.
(2)
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 and 15-20, in the reply filed on November 12, 2025, is acknowledged. Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration.
(3)
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on May 16, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202210530719.0 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
(4)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 6, 10, 11, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 requires an N-type doped microcrystalline silicon layer. Claim 5 contains a listing of appropriate material for the N-type doped microcrystalline silicon layer. This listing includes amorphous materials and is unclear for this reason. Specifically, it’s unclear how a microcrystalline material is also amorphous.
Claim 6 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 requires a P-type doped microcrystalline silicon layer. Claim 6 contains a listing of appropriate material for the P-type doped microcrystalline silicon layer. This listing includes amorphous materials and is unclear for this reason. Specifically, it’s unclear how a microcrystalline material is also amorphous.
Claims 10 and 11 require the first or second metal electrode, respectively, is formed from a cryogenic metal slurry electrode. This feature of the claimed invention is unclear. The cryogenic metal slurry requirement appears to define a starting material of the electrode and not the finally produced electrode. It’s unclear how the electrode of the required heterojunction battery is in slurry form.
Claim 19 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 requires an N-type doped microcrystalline silicon layer. Claim 19 contains a listing of appropriate material for the N-type doped microcrystalline silicon layer. This listing includes amorphous materials and is unclear for this reason. Specifically, it’s unclear how a microcrystalline material is also amorphous.
Claim 20 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 requires a P-type doped microcrystalline silicon layer. Claim 20 contains a listing of appropriate material for the P-type doped microcrystalline silicon layer. This listing includes amorphous materials and is unclear for this reason. Specifically, it’s unclear how a microcrystalline material is also amorphous.
(5)
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 15, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (EP 3 486 953 A1), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement, in view of Stubbs (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0306470). Ashcroft, N. W., & Mermin, N. D. (1976). Solid state physics. Saunders College Publishing/Holt, Rinehart & Winston is cited to support a statement of fact. Examiner notes the Ashcroft text book is 848 pages and Applicant is only being provided with an excerpt of the appropriate citation. Examiner is happy to provide Applicant with the entire document upon request.
With respect to claim 1, Wang teaches a heterojunction battery in the form of a heterojunction solar cell (Figure 2) comprising a crystalline silicon layer (100) and a first intrinsic amorphous layer (200), an N-type doped microcrystalline silicon layer (300), a first transparent conductive oxide layer (500) and a first metal electrode (700) sequentially arranged on a front surface of the crystalline silicon layer from inside to outside. Figure 2 and Paragraphs 13, 35, 37 and 45.
Wang further teaches the battery comprises a second intrinsic amorphous silicon layer (200), a P-type doped microcrystalline silicon layer (400), a second transparent conductive oxide (500) and a second metal electrode (700) sequentially arranged on a back surface of the crystalline silicon layer from inside to outside. Figure 2 and Paragraphs 13, 35 and 37.
Wang teaches in general terms the transparent conductive oxide is a metal oxide and fails to teach a specific material, meaning Wang is silent as to the carrier concentration of the first and second transparent conductive layers.
However, Stubbs, which deals with solar cells, teaches an improved indium tin oxide film with both near-infrared transparency and excellent resistivity. Title and Abstract. Stubbs teaches the material has low carrier concentration (1020/cm3) and high carrier mobility, which results in good conductive properties and increased transmission in the near infra-red region. Abstract. Stubbs teaches this material has photovoltaic applications. Paragraphs 2-8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Stubbs’s indium tin oxide (ITO) film in place of the metal oxide transparent conductive taught by Wang because Stubbs teaches this specific ITO material is associated with near-infrared transparency and excellent resistivity.
Modified Wang further teaches a local reduction layer in the form of a silver thin layer (600) is formed on both of a surface of the first and second transparent conductive layers that is under the first and second metal electrodes (700). Figure 2 and Paragraph 13.
The silver thin layer is a local reduction layer within the scope of the claimed invention because the carrier concentration of silver is greater than that of the ITO of modified Wang. Examiner relies on Ashcroft to support this statement of fact. Ashcroft teaches the carrier concentration of silver is 5.86 x 1022cm3, which is larger than that of the ITO of modified Wang. Page 5, Table 1.1.
With respect to claim 2, modified Wang teaches the main grid line electrode (700) formed on the local reduction layer has a diameter of 20 to 60 micrometers. Figure 2 and Paragraphs 13 and 72. The local reduction layer (600) has the same width as that of the main grid line electrode, meaning the local reduction layer has a width of 20 to 60 micrometers, wherein the width is interpreted to be the widest point of the grid line at its diameter. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
With respect to claim 4, modified Wang teaches the first intrinsic amorphous silicon layer comprises an undoped amorphous silicon semiconductor film and has a thickness of 1 to 20 nm. Paragraphs 76 and 77. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
With respect to claim 5, modified Wang teaches the N-type doped microcrystalline silicon layer comprises N-type doped microcrystalline silicon semiconductor film and has a thickness of 1 to 20 nm. Paragraphs 36, 37 and 53. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
With respect to claim 6, modified Wang teaches the P-type doped microcrystalline silicon layer comprises P-type doped microcrystalline silicon semiconductor film and has a thickness of 1 to 20 nm. Paragraphs 36, 37 and 53. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
With respect to claims 7, 8 and 9, modified Wang teaches the first and second transparent conductive layers are indium tin oxide transparent conductive films and comprises indium elements in an amount of 90% by weight and tin elements in an amount of 10% by weight. Stubbs, Abstract and Paragraphs 28 and 33. Modified Wang further teaches the thickness of the ITO is 50 to 150 nm. Wang, Paragraph 55. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
With respect to claim 15, modified Wang teaches a photovoltaic assembly in the form of a photovoltaic module comprising the heterojunction battery of claim 1. Paragraph 97.
With respect to claim 16, modified Wang teaches the main grid line electrode (700) formed on the local reduction layer has a diameter of 20 to 60 micrometers. Figure 2 and Paragraphs 13 and 72. The local reduction layer (600) has the same width as that of the main grid line electrode, meaning the local reduction layer has a width of 20 to 60 micrometers, wherein the width is interpreted to be the widest point of the grid line at its diameter. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
With respect to claim 18, modified Wang teaches the first intrinsic amorphous silicon layer comprises an undoped amorphous silicon semiconductor film and has a thickness of 1 to 20 nm. Paragraphs 76 and 77. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
With respect to claim 19, modified Wang teaches the N-type doped microcrystalline silicon layer comprises N-type doped microcrystalline silicon semiconductor film and has a thickness of 1 to 20 nm. Paragraphs 36, 37 and 53. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
With respect to claim 20, modified Wang teaches the P-type doped microcrystalline silicon layer comprises P-type doped microcrystalline silicon semiconductor film and has a thickness of 1 to 20 nm. Paragraphs 36, 37 and 53. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
(6)
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (EP 3 486 953 A1), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement, in view of Stubbs (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0306470), as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-9, 15, 16 and 18-20, above, and further in view of Yuda et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0270419).
With respect to claims 3 and 17, modified Wang teaches the crystalline silicon layer has a thickness of 100-250 micrometers. Paragraph 66. Modified Wang is silent as to its conductivity types and whether it is formed of monocrystalline silicon.
However, Yuda, which deals with heterojunction solar cells, teaches the crystalline silicon layer for such a heterojunction solar cell is N-type doped monocrystalline silicon. Paragraph 66.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of modified Wang with Yuda is the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Both modified Wang and Yuda are directed toward heterojunction solar cells comprising crystalline silicon support layers. Yuda teaches N-type doped monocrystalline silicon is an effective material for such a support layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize N-type doped monocrystalline silicon for the crystalline silicon layer taught by Wang because Yuda teaches this to be an effective material for a heterojunction solar cell, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
(7)
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (EP 3 486 953 A1), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement, in view of Stubbs (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0306470), as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-9, 15, 16 and 18-20, above, and further in view of Nakai et al. (DE 69811511 T2). Examiner notes the citations to Nakai refer to the included English-language machine translation.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Examiner notes that the claim is a product-by-process claim. “If the product in the product-by-process is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113. In this case, the requirement that the electrode be produced by a cryogenic metal slurry is a product-by-process limitation.
Modified Wang, as explained above, teaches the metal grid lines have a width, as determined by their diameter, of 20 to 60 micrometers. Figure 2 and Paragraphs 13 and 72. Modified Wang further teaches the metal grid lines contain aluminum. Paragraph 116. As per the MPEP, "where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists." MPEP 2144.05(I) (internal citation omitted).
Modified Wang is silent as to the thickness of the aluminum metal grid lines.
However, Nakai, which deals with solar cells, teaches 20 to 25 microns is an effective thickness for aluminum electrodes in a solar cell. Page 9, Paragraph 7.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of modified Wang with Nakai is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Both modified Wang and Nakai teach solar cells comprising aluminum electrodes. Nakai teaches a thickness of 20 to 25 microns is an effective thickness for the electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang so that the aluminum electrode has a thickness of 20 to 25 microns because Nakai teaches this to be an effective amount, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
(8)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Verhaverbeke et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0101829) teaches the carrier concentration of a TCO layer is a result effective variable that is adjusted to strike a balance between improved electrical conductivity and optical transparency. Paragraph 2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI S MEKHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 am to 5:00 pm 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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/ELI S MEKHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759