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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claim 21 is 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. Specifically, claim 21 recites the limitation "the first antireflection layer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, claim 22 recites “the solar cell does not comprise a transparent conductive layer,” however, the as-filed specification does not describe this limitation. It is noted that the described solar cell comprises antireflection layers which are considered transparent and conductive (it is noted that the limitation does not specify the type of conduction).
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 1, 4, 8, 15, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al. (US 2013/0240031) in view of Heng et al. (US 2011/0272012).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Shim discloses a solar cell (abstract) comprising: a substrate (110 in Fig. 6), wherein the substrate is provided with a first surface (bottom surface of 110 in Fig. 6) and a second surface opposite to the first surface (second surface is top surface of 110 in Fig. 6), the first surface comprising first regions and second regions, the first regions and the second regions being alternately arranged (first region in surface of 110 adjacent to 172 in the thickness direction in Fig. 6; second region in surface of 110 adjacent to 175 in Fig. 6); a first passivation layer, wherein the first passivation layer comprises a first passivation sub-layer covering doped polysilicon layer on the first regions (portion of 175 in Fig. 6 which covers the surface of 110 adjacent to 172 in the thickness direction), and a second passivation sub-layer covering the second regions (portion of 175 covering the surface of 110 between layers of 172; it is noted that the limitation “passivation layer” is interpreted to require a layer which has the capability of passivating, at least to an extent); and an intrinsic amorphous silicon layer (171 in Fig. 6; [0135]) and a doped amorphous silicon layer (121a in Fig.6) which are arranged on the second surface (171 and 121a in relation to top surface of 110 in Fig. 6), wherein the intrinsic amorphous silicon layer is arranged between the second surface and the doped amorphous silicon layer (171 in relation to the top surface of 110 and 121a in Fig. 6), wherein a conductivity type of the doped polysilicon layer is different from a conductivity type of the doped amorphous silicon layer (171 is n+ and 121 is p-type as depicted in Fig. 6), wherein the solar cell further comprises: a second passivation layer covering the doped amorphous silicon layer, wherein the second passivation layer is in direct contact with the doped amorphous silicon layer (131 in Fig. 6; [0045]; it is noted that limitation “passivation layer” is satisfied by a layer which has the capability to passivate, at least to an extent); a second antireflection layer covering the second passivation layer (132 in Fig. 6; [0045]); and second electrodes, wherein the second electrodes penetrate through the second antireflection layer and the second passivation layer and are in direct contact with the doped amorphous silicon layer (142 in relation to 131, 132 and 121a in Fig. 6), wherein the second passivation layer and the second antireflection layer are two separate layers that are physical separated from each other (131 and 132 in Fig. 6).
While Shim does disclose a doped polysilicon layer arranged on the first regions in the first surface (172 on 110 in Fig. 6; [0036],[0056]); Shim does not explicitly disclose a tunnel oxide layer arranged on the first regions in the first surface.
Heng discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a tunnel oxide layer arranged between a substrate and a back surface field layer (204 in relation to 200 and 208 in Fig. 2D; [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a tunnel oxide layer, as disclosed by Heng, between the substrate and back surface field layer of Shim, because as taught by Heng, a back-side oxide tunneling junction between the base layer and the back surface field achieves improved Voc ([0048]).
Modified Shim discloses the tunnel oxide layer (Heng – 204 in Dig. 2D) is arranged between the first surface (Shim – surface of 110 adjacent to 172 in Fig. 6) and the doped polysilicon layer (Shim – 172 in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 15, Shim discloses an electric device comprising a solar cell (abstract; the disclosed solar cell satisfies the limitation “an electric device”), wherein the solar cell comprises: a substrate (110 in Fig. 6), wherein the substrate is provided with a first surface (bottom surface of 110 in Fig. 6) and a second surface opposite to the first surface (second surface is top surface of 110 in Fig. 6), the first surface comprising first regions and second regions, the first regions and the second regions being alternately arranged (first region in surface of 110 adjacent to 172 in the thickness direction in Fig. 6; second region in surface of 110 adjacent to 175 in Fig. 6); a first passivation layer, wherein the first passivation layer comprises a first passivation sub-layer covering doped polysilicon layer on the first regions (portion of 175 in Fig. 6 which covers the surface of 110 adjacent to 172 in the thickness direction), and a second passivation sub-layer covering the second regions (portion of 175 covering the surface of 110 between layers of 172; it is noted that the limitation “passivation layer” is interpreted to require a layer which has the capability of passivating, at least to an extent); and an intrinsic amorphous silicon layer (171 in Fig. 6; [0135]) and a doped amorphous silicon layer (121a in Fig.6) which are arranged on the second surface (171 and 121a in relation to top surface of 110 in Fig. 6), wherein the intrinsic amorphous silicon layer is arranged between the second surface and the doped amorphous silicon layer (171 in relation to the top surface of 110 and 121a in Fig. 6), wherein a conductivity type of the doped polysilicon layer is different from a conductivity type of the doped amorphous silicon layer (171 is n+ and 121 is p-type as depicted in Fig. 6), wherein the solar cell further comprises: a second passivation layer covering the doped amorphous silicon layer, wherein the second passivation layer is in direct contact with the doped amorphous silicon layer (131 in Fig. 6; [0045]; it is noted that limitation “passivation layer” is satisfied by a layer which has the capability to passivate, at least to an extent); a second antireflection layer covering the second passivation layer (132 in Fig. 6; [0045]); and second electrodes, wherein the second electrodes penetrate through the second antireflection layer and the second passivation layer and are in direct contact with the doped amorphous silicon layer (142 in relation to 131, 132 and 121a in Fig. 6), wherein the second passivation layer and the second antireflection layer are two separate layers that are physical separated from each other (131 and 132 in Fig. 6).
While Shim does disclose a doped polysilicon layer arranged on the first regions in the first surface (172 on 110 in Fig. 6; [0036],[0056]); Shim does not explicitly disclose a tunnel oxide layer arranged on the first regions in the first surface.
Heng discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a tunnel oxide layer arranged between a substrate and a back surface field layer (204 in relation to 200 and 208 in Fig. 2D; [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a tunnel oxide layer, as disclosed by Heng, between the substrate and back surface field layer of Shim, because as taught by Heng, a back-side oxide tunneling junction between the base layer and the back surface field achieves improved Voc ([0048]).
Modified Shim discloses the tunnel oxide layer (Heng – 204 in Dig. 2D) is arranged between the first surface (Shim – surface of 110 adjacent to 172 in Fig. 6) and the doped polysilicon layer (Shim – 172 in Fig. 6).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, modified Shim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Shim further discloses the substrate an n-type semiconductor substrate (Shim – [0036]), the doped polysilicon layer comprises an n-type (Shim – 172 in Fig. 6) doped polysilicon layer (Shim – [0036],[0056]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Shim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Shim further discloses the first electrodes are formed in positions corresponding to the first regions (Shim – 152 in Fig. 6).
Claims 2, 7, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al. (US 2013/0240031) in view of Heng et al. (US 2011/0272012) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (US 11,329,172).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, modified Shim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Shim does disclose first electrodes penetrate through the first passivation sub-layer and are in direct contact with the doped polysilicon layer (Shim – 152 in relation to 172 and adjacent portions of 175); modified Shim does not explicitly disclose a first antireflection layer covering the first passivation layer, wherein the first passivation layer and the first antireflection layer are two separate layers, and wherein the first electrodes penetrate through the first antireflection layer and the first passivation sub-layer.
Chang discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses an antireflection layer (32 in Fig. 6; C7/L58-59) covering a passivation layer (31 in Fig. 6; C7/L58-59), wherein the passivation layer and the antireflection layer are two separate layers (31 and 32 in Fig. 6), and wherein first electrodes penetrate through the antireflection layer and the passivation layer (34 in relation to 31 and 32 in Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a first antireflection layer, as disclosed by Chang, to cover the first passivation sub-layer of modified Shim, because as taught by Chang, reflectivity of light incident on the back surface of the semiconductor substrate is reduced (C8/L9-10).
Regarding claim 7, modified Shim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Shim does not explicitly disclose a protective layer is arranged on the doped polysilicon layer.
Chang discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses an antireflection layer (32 in Fig. 6; C7/L58-59) covering a passivation layer (31 in Fig. 6; C7/L58-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a first antireflection layer, as disclosed by Chang, to cover the first passivation sub-layer of modified Shim, because as taught by Chang, reflectivity of light incident on the back surface of the semiconductor substrate is reduced (C8/L9-10).
Modified Shim discloses a protective layer (Chang - 32 in Fig. 6; C7/L58-59) is arranged on the doped polysilicon layer (Shim – 172 in Fig. 6; it is noted that the limitation “arranged on” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components).
Regarding claim 21, modified Shim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Shim does disclose the tunneling oxide layer (Heng – 204 in Fig. 2D) is in direct contact with the first surface of the substrate (Heng – 204 in relation to 200 in Fig. 2D), and the second passivation sub-layer covering the second regions is in direct contact with the first surface of the substrate (Shim - portion of 175 between layers of 172 is in direct contact with the surface of 110); modified Shim does not explicitly disclose a first antireflection layer.
Chang discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses an antireflection layer (32 in Fig. 6; C7/L58-59) covering a passivation layer (31 in Fig. 6; C7/L58-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a first antireflection layer, as disclosed by Chang, to cover the first passivation sub-layer of modified Shim, because as taught by Chang, reflectivity of light incident on the back surface of the semiconductor substrate is reduced (C8/L9-10).
Modified Shim discloses the first antireflection layer (Chang - 32 in Fig. 6;
C7/L58-59) is in direct contact with both the first passivation sub-layer and the second passivation sub-layer (the first antireflection layer set forth in modified Shim above is in direct contact with the portion of 175 in Fig. 6 of Shim which covers the surface of 110 adjacent to 172 in the thickness direction and the portion of 175 covering the surface of 110 between layers of 172).
Claims 5, 6, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al. (US 2013/0240031) in view of Heng et al. (US 2011/0272012) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (CN117423763A – see equivalent US 2024/0355941 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, modified Shim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Shim does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the tunnel oxide layer ranges from 0.5 nm to 3 nm, and a thickness of the doped polysilicon layer ranges from 60 nm to 130 nm.
Hu discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a thickness of a tunnel oxide layer is 0.5 nm to 3 nm ([0013]), and a thickness of the doped polysilicon layer is 100 nm ([0055] L4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the tunnel oxide layer of modified Shim with a thickness of 0.5 to 3 nm and with a thickness of the doped polysilicon layer of 100 nm, as disclosed by Hu, because as evidenced by Hu, forming a tunnel oxide layer and a doped polysilicon layer with the thicknesses disclosed amounts to the use of known dimensions in the art for tunnel oxide and doped polysilicon layers, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the tunnel oxide and doped polysilicon layers of modified Shim with the thicknesses disclosed based on the teaching of Hu.
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 claims 6 and 20, modified Shim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Shim does disclose a thickness of the intrinsic amorphous silicon layer ranges from 1 nm to 10 nm (Shim – [0135]), modified Shim does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the doped amorphous silicon layer ranges from 30 nm to 40 nm.
Hu discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a thickness of the doped amorphous silicon layer is 30 nm ([0068] L6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the doped amorphous silicon layer of modified Shim with a thickness of 30 nm, as disclosed by Hu, because as evidenced by Hu, the formation of a doped amorphous silicon layer with a thickness of 30 nm amounts to the use of a known thickness in the art for the formation of doped amorphous silicon layers, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the doped amorphous silicon layer of modified Shim with a thickness of 30 nm based on the teaching of Hu.
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-8, 15-16, and 18-22 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 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