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 . Applicant’s amendment, filed April 20, 2026, is entered. Applicant amended claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 19 and 20. No new matter is entered. Claims 1-11 and 15-20 are pending before the Office for review. Claims 12-14 remain withdrawn in response to a restriction requirement.
(2)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 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 Matsuura et al. (WO 2013/145008 A1) and Tsai (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0206994). The citations to Matsuura refer to the included English-language machine translation.
With respect to claim 1, Examiner notes 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 claim specifies how the local reduction layer is formed, which is a product-by-process limitation.
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 is silent as to whether a local reduction layer is formed on either or both o fa surface of the first and second transparent conductive layers under the first and second metal electrodes, respectively.
However, Matsuura, which deals with photovoltaic elements, teaches a reduction treatment is formed on the transparent conductive film of a solar cell to increase the carrier concentration. Page 4, Third Paragraph.
Additionally, Tsai, which deals with solar cells, teaches reduced carrier concentration is associated with higher light transmittance and reduced output current due to higher resistance and increased carrier concentration is associated with better series resistance and reduced transmittance. Paragraph 19.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, when considering Matsuura and Tsai collectively, to modify Wang to form a local reduction layer at the portion of the transparent conductive film in contact with the first and/or second metal electrode because doing so obtains the benefit of better series resistance without the downside of reduced transmittance because the area is already obscured by the metal electrode. More specifically, it’d be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that because the portion of the transparent conductive film beneath the metal electrode is already blocked from receiving sunlight, that forming the reduction portion in that area only is associated with only the benefit of better series resistance without the downside of worse light transmittance.
With respect to claim 2, modified Wang teaches the local reduction layer is formed to correspond to the main grid line, meaning it has the same width as that of the main grid line electrode. Matsuura, Page 4, Third paragraph and Tsai, Paragraph 19. Wang also teaches main grid line electrode (700) has a diameter of 20 to 60 micrometers. Figure 2 and Paragraphs 13 and 72. In this case, the width of the local reduction layer 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 and 8, modified Wang teaches the first and second transparent conductive layers are tin-doped indium oxide films. Matsuura, Page 7, Fifth paragraph. 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 local reduction layer is formed to correspond to the main grid line, meaning it has the same width as that of the main grid line electrode. Matsuura, Page 4, Third paragraph and Tsai, Paragraph 19. Wang also teaches main grid line electrode (700) has a diameter of 20 to 60 micrometers. Figure 2 and Paragraphs 13 and 72. In this case, the width of the local reduction layer 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).
(3)
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 Matsuura et al. (WO 2013/145008 A1) and Tsai (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0206994), as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-8, 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.
(4)
Claim 9 is 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 Matsuura et al. (WO 2013/145008 A1) and Tsai (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0206994), as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-8, 15, 16 and 18-20, above, and further in view of Stubbs (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0306470).
With respect to claim 9, modified Wang teaches the transparent conductive film is tin-doped indium oxide but is silent as to whether the mass percentage of indium elements in the first and second transparent conductive layers is 90% and the mass percentage of tin elements in the first and second transparent conductive layers is 10%.
However, Stubbs teaches a transparent conductive oxide comprising indium elements in an amount of 90% by weight and tin elements in an amount of 10% by weight. Abstract and Paragraphs 28 and 33. Stubbs teaches a transparent conductive oxide comprising this ratio of materials exhibits increased transmission in the near infra-red region and good conductive properties. Abstract.
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 the mass percentages taught by Stubbs for the transparent conductive oxide layers comprising tin-doped indium oxide because Stubbs teaches doing so obtains a TCO having increased transmission in the near infra-red region and good conductive properties, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
(5)
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 Matsuura et al. (WO 2013/145008 A1) and Tsai (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0206994), as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-8, 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.
(6)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the rejection.
(7)
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 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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
Prosecution Insights