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 1-10, in the reply filed on December 9, 2025, is acknowledged. Although the election is without traverse, Applicant argues the amendment to claim 11 removes the additional search burden on Examiner. Examiner disagrees. Claims 11-20, as written, are method claims and not product-by-process claims, meaning Examiner is required to perform a separate search for the process of making the product. This would be a second search in addition to the first search for the product, meaning Examiner is faced with an additional search burden. Additionally, the process of Group II does not relate to the same single general inventive concept as that of Group I because the fire-through sintering step to form the back electrode is not a requirement of Group I.
(3)
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the disclosure references a back junction solar cell but then describes a solar cell with the electrodes on opposite surfaces. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The following title is suggested: A solar cell and preparation method therefor.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: the incorrect usage of “back junction” to characterize the solar cell that is described and depicted as having junctions on both surfaces.
(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 1-10 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 1 purports to be directed toward a “back junction solar cell” but its substantive requirements define a solar cell with contacts on both the front and rear surface. Accordingly, the claim is insolubly ambiguous as to the required structure. Examiner further notes the specification defines the first and second main surfaces as being opposite to each other with one of the surfaces being a backlight surface.
Claim 6 is unclear as to the final composition of the front electrode. Specifically, forming the plurality of fingers and the plurality of busbars from “pure metal aluminum” is unclear as to the final composition of the electrode because it’s unclear whether ambient atmosphere or other byproducts, such as silicon or boron or anti-reflection materials, are incorporated into the electrode.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the number of fingers included in the front electrode" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the number of fingers included in the back electrode" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite because their scope is unascertainable to one ordinarily skilled in the art. Claims 2-10 are also rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
(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 1-3 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, 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 for “physical deposition” is a product-by-process limitation.
Modified Li teaches the plurality of finger and busbar electrodes are formed of aluminum without reference to other components, 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.
(6)
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, 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 requirement specifying how the Group III element is doped into the substrate to form the front surface field is a product-by-process limitation.
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.
(7)
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.
(8)
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.
(9)
Conclusion
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