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 May 19, 2026, is entered. Applicant amended claims 4, 6 and 10. No new matter is entered. Claims 1-10 are pending before the Office for review. Claims 11-20 remain withdrawn in response to a restriction requirement.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 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 112133763 A), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement, in view of Shim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0308608). Examiner notes the citations to Li 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 is a product-by-process claim to the extent “penetrates” is directed toward a specific method of forming the back electrode.
Li teaches a back junction solar cell (figure 1) comprising a p-type silicon substrate (1), a tunneling oxide layer (9), an N-type doped silicon layer (5) and a first passivation anti-reflection layer (6) sequentially arranged on a first main surface of the p-type substrate from inside to outside, wherein silicon oxide is an effective material for the tunneling layer and aluminum oxide is an effective material for the back passivation layer with the aluminum oxide being disclosed as having an anti-reflective property. Figure 1 and Pages 7-9. Li further teaches a back electrode (7) penetrates through the first passivation anti-reflection layer (6) to be electrically connected with the N-type doped silicon layer. Page 9, Last paragraph.
Li further teaches a P+ local front surface field (2) formed by Group III elements (boron) and a front electrode (4) formed by Group III elements (aluminum) are arranged on a second main surface of the p-type substrate, wherein the front electrode is connected to the local front surface field and a position of the local front surface field corresponds to a position of the front electrode. Figure 1 and Page 6, Twelfth full paragraph and Page 7, Third full paragraph.
Li teaches a second passivation anti-reflection layer (3) formed of silicon oxide, which is disclosed to have a passivation effect, is formed on the second main surface of the p-type silicon substrate in a region where the front electrode is not formed and on lateral sides of the front electrode (Figure 1 and Page 7, Last paragraph and Page 8, Fourth paragraph) but is silent as to whether the passivation layer is also on the front sides of the front electrode.
However, Shim, which deals with solar cells, teaches portions of the front and lateral sides of a front electrode are covered with anti-reflection layer so that the surface of the anti-reflection layer is higher than that of uncovered portions of the front electrode, which allows for easy attachment of conductive tape, such as ribbon. Figures 6 and 7 and Paragraph 151.
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 form the anti-reflection layer to cover front and lateral sides of portions of the front electrode because Shim teaches doing so allows for easy attachment of conductive tape, such as ribbon.
With respect to claim 2, 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 is a product-by-process claim to the extent “penetrates” is directed toward a specific method of forming the front pad.
Modified Li teaches a front pad in the form of a conductive ribbon is positioned within an opening in the second passivation anti-reflection layer, which satisfies the “penetrates” requirement of the claimed invention, wherein the conductive ribbon is electrically connected with the front electrode. Shim, Paragraph 151.
With respect to claim 3, modified Li teaches each of the portions of the front electrode are connected with their corresponding local front surface fields, respectively, but is silent as to whether the front electrode includes a plurality of fingers and a plurality of bus bars crossing the fingers, each corresponding to their own local front surface fields, respectively.
However, Shim teaches the front electrode (140) of a solar cell is formed to include a plurality of fingers (141) and a plurality of bus bars (142) crossing the plurality of finger electrodes. Figure 1 and Paragraphs 71-76.
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 Li with Shim is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Both Li and Shim are directed toward solar cells comprising front electrodes. Shim teaches a front electrode arrangement comprising a plurality of finger electrodes intersected by a plurality of bus bar electrodes. 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 Shim’s front electrode design in Li’s solar cell because Shim teaches this to be an effective electrode design, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, when Li’s electrode is modified, as taught by Shim, each of the fingers and bus bars correspond to their own local front surface fields and are connected with their corresponding local front surface fields, respectively, as taught by Li.
With respect to claim 5, modified Li teaches the front pad is electrically connected with the busbar. Shim, Paragraph 151.
With respect to claim 6, modified Li teaches the plurality of finger and busbar electrodes are formed of aluminum, which meets the requirements of the claimed invention. Page 7, Fourth paragraph.
With respect to claim 7, modified Li teaches the plurality of fingers but is silent as to their widths.
However, as per the MPEP, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims [is] a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device [is[ not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (internal citation omitted).
In this case, the plurality of fingers perform a charge collection function independent of their specific width.
(3)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 112133763 A), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement, in view of Shim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0308608), as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-7 above, and further in view of Moslehi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0171767).
With respect to claim 4, modified Li teaches the front electrode corresponds in placement to the front surface field, which is included in a partial region of the p-type substrate, wherein the front electrode is formed of aluminum and the front surface field is doped with boron, a Group III element (Page 6, Twelfth full paragraph and Page 7, Third full paragraph.), but is silent as to whether aluminum is used for the front surface field dopant.
However, Moslehi, which deals with solar cells, teaches aluminum and boron are recognized equivalents as p-type dopants. Paragraph 118.
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 aluminum in place of boron because Moslehi teaches they are recognized equivalents to perform the same p-type doping function, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
(4)
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 112133763 A), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement, in view of Shim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0308608), as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-7 above, and further in view of Hassan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0006385).
With respect to claims 8 and 9, modified Li teaches the front pad comprises a conductive ribbon but is silent as to whether it is formed of silver such that it is a silver pad.
However, Hassan, which deals with solar cells, teaches a nickel-coated silver ribbon is an effective conductive ribbon for solar cells. Paragraph 75. The ribbon functions as a cross-buss and is shaped as a front pad within the scope of the claimed invention. Figure 5.
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 Li with Hassan is the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Both modified Li and Hassan are directed toward solar cells comprising conductive ribbons. Hassan teaches a nickel-coated silver ribbon is an effective conductive ribbon for solar cell applications. 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 Hassan’s nickel-coated silver ribbon for modified Li’s conductive ribbon because Hassan teaches this ribbon to be effective for the same purpose, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, the nickel-coating is a metal nickel barrier layer between the front electrode and the front pad (conductive ribbon) within the scope of the claimed invention.
(5)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 112133763 A), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement, in view of Shim et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0308608), as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-7 above, and further in view of Hashimoto et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0243024).
With respect to claim 10, modified Li teaches a front electrode and a back electrode, wherein the front electrode comprises a plurality of fingers but is silent as to whether the back electrode comprises a plurality of fingers with the number of fingers of the back electrode being greater than the number of fingers in the front electrode.
However, Hashimoto, which deals with solar cells, teaches a solar cell design wherein both the front and rear electrodes comprise finger electrodes. Figures 4A and 4B and Paragraph 38. Hashimoto further teaches the number of finger electrodes in the front electrode (4A) are less than those in the back electrode (4B). Figures 4A and 4B and Paragraph 38.
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 Li with Hashimoto is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Both modified Li and Hashimoto teach solar cells. Hashimoto teaches an effective electrode arrangement for a solar cell comprises front and rear electrodes having a plurality of finger electrodes and bus bar electrodes, wherein the number of fingers for the front electrode is less than that of the back electrode. 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 the same configuration in modified Li’s solar cell because Hashimoto establishes it is an effective electrode arrangement, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
(6)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the objection to the specification are persuasive. The objection is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-10 as indefinite are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s argument to claim 1 and amendments to claims 6 and 10.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that modifying Li in view of Shim is not appropriate because Shim teaches the second anti-reflection layer is positioned for a different purpose than Li and is not related to passivation. Examiner disagrees. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant next argues one ordinarily skilled in the art would not modify Li in view of Shim because this would involve changing the method of Li. This argument is not persuasive because the claimed invention is directed toward the solar cell itself and not the method of making the solar cell. And, contrary to Applicant’s argument, Shim does suggest a structural arrangement where the passivation layer is on the front electrode, meaning Li and Shim, as combined above, teach the structural arrangement required by the claimed invention.
Applicant next argues the width choice of the electrodes is not a design choice but provides a functional benefit. Applicant’s rationale is flawed because the functional benefit argued by Applicant is increased light absorbing area, is attributable to the solar cell itself and not the specific width of the electrodes in that the electrodes are not argued to perform differently than prior art electrodes of a different width.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant argues Moslehi teaches boron and aluminum are recognized equivalents as p-type dopants for back-contact cells. Applicant concludes they are not recognized equivalents for a front surface field, or that this would not lead one to use aluminum in both the front electrode and front surface field. Examiner disagrees. Again, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). It’s not clear why Moslehi’s disclosure of equivalency should be limited to one type of doping, when the elements are acknowledged to both be suitable as p-type dopants.
Additionally, modified Li in further view of Moslehi teaches a front electrode comprising aluminum and a front surface field comprising aluminum. The requirements of the claimed invention are satisfied. In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
(7)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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