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
Claims 20 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 20 and 22 appear to contain a typographical error with regard to the recitation “wherein the contact layer comprises a transparent oxide, optionally comprises doped indium oxide, tin oxide, zinc oxide, aluminum oxide, or tungsten oxide.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 20 and 22 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. Specifically, it is unclear as to whether claims 20 and 22 require a transparent oxide and the transparent oxide is optionally comprised of the materials listed, or whether the limitation requires the contact layer to be comprised of a transparent oxide and optionally another oxide from those listed.
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, 3, 7-8, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 115513306A – see attached machine translation) in view of Chung et al. (US 10,181,534).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a heterojunction solar cell ([n0089]) comprising: a substrate of a first conductivity type ([n0091] discloses the substrate is n-type); a tunnel layer located on a light-receiving surface of the substrate (5 in Fig. 1; [n0091]); a doped polysilicon layer located on a surface of the tunnel layer away from the substrate (4 in Fig. 1; [n0091]), the doped polysilicon layer having the first conductivity type ([n0092] – n-type doped polysilicon layer 4); a passivation anti-reflection layer located on the doped polysilicon layer (2 on 4 in Fig. 1, [n0090]; it is noted that the limitation “on” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components); and a first electrode penetrating through the passivation anti-reflection layer and electrically connected to the doped polysilicon layer (1 in relation to 2 and 4 in Fig. 1); wherein the first electrode includes: a lead-out electrode extending from a surface of the passivation anti-reflection layer away from the substrate into the passivation anti-reflection layer (1 in relation to 2 in Fig. 1).
Wu does not explicitly disclose a contact layer, a surface of the contact layer away from the substrate being in contact with a surface of the lead-out electrode adjacent to the substrate, and a surface of the contact layer adjacent to the substrate being in contact with the doped polysilicon layer.
Chung discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a contact layer (422 in Fig. 2; C11/L10), a surface of the contact layer away from the substrate being in contact with a surface of a lead-out electrode adjacent to the substrate (424 in Fig. 2; C11/L10-11), and a surface of the contact layer adjacent to the substrate being in contact with a doped polysilicon layer (C6/L43-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a contact layer, as disclosed by Chung, between a surface of the lead-out electrode and a surface of the doped polysilicon layer of Wu, because as taught by Chung, the adhesive layer may enhance the contact property and adhesion property of the first conductive type region and the electrode layer (C11/L20-22).
Modified Wu discloses the contact layer includes: a first sub-contact layer located between the lead-out electrode and the doped polysilicon layer (Chung – shown in annotated Fig. 2 below); and a second sub-contact layer located on the surface of the passivation anti-reflection layer (Wu – 2 in Fig. 1) away from the substrate (Chung – shown in annotated Fig. 2 below), the second sub-contact layer and the first sub-contact layer are integrated as a single member (Chung – first and second sub-contact layers shown in annotated Fig. 2 below).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “a heterojunction solar cell,” statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 3, modified Wu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Wu further discloses the tunnel layer includes a tunnel oxide layer (Wu - [0093]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Wu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Wu further discloses an intrinsic amorphous layer located on a shadowed surface of the substrate, the shadowed surface being opposite to the light-receiving surface (Wu - 7 in Fig. 1; [n0085]); a doped semiconductor back layer located on a surface of the intrinsic amorphous silicon layer away from the substrate (Wu - 8 in Fig. 1; [n0106]); and an electrically conductive back layer located on a surface of the doped semiconductor back layer away from the substrate (Wu - 9 in Fig. 1; [n0091]) wherein a material of the doped semiconductor back layer includes doped microcrystalline silicon material (Wu - [n0106]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Wu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “wherein a heterojunction is entirely eliminated from the light-receiving surface of the heterojunction solar cell,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 19, modified Wu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Wu further discloses a photovoltaic module comprising the heterojunction solar cell (Wu - [n0089]; the solar cell disclosed satisfies the limitation “photovoltaic module”).
[AltContent: textbox (second sub-contact layer)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first sub-contact layer)]
PNG
media_image1.png
514
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Wu discloses a heterojunction solar cell ([n0089]) comprising: a substrate of a first conductivity type ([n0091] discloses the substrate is n-type); a tunnel layer located on a light-receiving surface of the substrate (5 in Fig. 1; [n0091]); a doped polysilicon layer located on a surface of the tunnel layer away from the substrate (4 in Fig. 1; [n0091]), the doped polysilicon layer having the first conductivity type ([n0092] – n-type doped polysilicon layer 4); a passivation anti-reflection layer located on the doped polysilicon layer (2 on 4 in Fig. 1, [n0090]; it is noted that the limitation “on” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components); and a first electrode penetrating through the passivation anti-reflection layer and electrically connected to the doped polysilicon layer (1 in relation to 2 and 4 in Fig. 1); wherein the first electrode includes: a lead-out electrode extending from a surface of the passivation anti-reflection layer away from the substrate into the passivation anti-reflection layer (1 in relation to 2 in Fig. 1).
Wu does not explicitly disclose a contact layer, a surface of the contact layer away from the substrate being in contact with a surface of the lead-out electrode adjacent to the substrate, and a surface of the contact layer adjacent to the substrate being in contact with the doped polysilicon layer.
Chung discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a contact layer (422 in Fig. 2; C11/L10), a surface of the contact layer away from the substrate being in contact with a surface of a lead-out electrode adjacent to the substrate (424 in Fig. 2; C11/L10-11), and a surface of the contact layer adjacent to the substrate being in contact with a doped polysilicon layer (C6/L43-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a contact layer, as disclosed by Chung, between a surface of the lead-out electrode and a surface of the doped polysilicon layer of Wu, because as taught by Chung, the adhesive layer may enhance the contact property and adhesion property of the first conductive type region and the electrode layer (C11/L20-22).
Modified Wu discloses the passivation anti-reflection layer has a first filling groove (Wu – groove in which 1 extends through 2 in Fig. 1), and the contact layer extends from a bottom of the first filling groove along an inner wall of the first filling groove onto the surface of the passivation anti-reflection layer (Wu – 2 in Fig. 1) away from the substrate to cover the passivation anti-reflection layer (Chung – 422 in relation to the bottom and inner wall of 402 in Fig. 2).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “a heterojunction solar cell,” statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115.
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 115513306A – see attached machine translation) in view of Chung et al. (US 10,181,534) as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Niira et al. (US 2009/0223562).
Regarding claims 20 and 22, modified Wu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Wu does not explicitly disclose the contact layer comprises a transparent oxide.
Niira discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a contact layer comprising a transparent oxide which increases the adhesion strength between a silicon layer and a conductive layer ([0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the contact layer of modified Wu with a transparent oxide, as disclosed by Niira, because as evidenced by Niira, the use of a transparent oxide as an adhesive layer between a silicon layer and a conductive 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 skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when using a transparent oxide as the contact layer of modified Wu based on the teaching of Niira.
Additionally, Niira teaches the transparent conductive adhesive layer increases the adhesion strength between a silicon layer and a conductive layer ([0037])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 7-8, and 19-22 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