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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 and 11-12, in the reply filed on 08/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 114823935 A – see equivalent US 2025/0072161 A1) in view of Wu et al. (WO 2023/197840 – see equivalent US 2025/0143005).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a heterojunction cell (abstract) comprising: a substrate ([0029], layer 1); a first intrinsic amorphous silicon layer ([0029], layer 2), a first silicon material layer ([0029], layer 3), and a first transparent conductive oxide layer that are disposed in sequence on a first side surface of the substrate ([0029], layer 4 and a bottom layer of 10 adjacent to 4 in Fig. 1); a transparent conductive oxide pattern that is disposed on different regions of a surface of the first transparent conductive oxide layer facing away from the substrate ([0029], a top layer of layer 10, directly under 5 in Fig. 1, satisfies the limitation “a transparent conductive oxide pattern”); and a first metal electrode stacked on a surface of the transparent conductive oxide pattern facing away from the substrate ([0029], layer 5).
Liu does not explicitly disclose an antireflection layer that is disposed on different regions of the surface of the first transparent conductive oxide layer facing away from the substrate.
Wu discloses a heterojunction cell (Fig. 4) and further discloses an antireflection layer on a top surface of the heterojunction cell (312 in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form an antireflection layer, as disclosed by Wu, on the top surface of the heterojunction solar cell of Liu, because as evidenced by Wu, including an antireflection layer on the top surface of a heterojunction solar cell amounts to the use of a known component/material 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 including an antireflection layer on the top surface of the heterojunction cell of Liu based on the teaching of Wu.
Modified Liu discloses an antireflection layer (Wu – 312 in Fig. 4) that is disposed on different regions of the surface of the first transparent conductive oxide layer facing away from the substrate (312, as disclosed in Wu, on 4 in Fig. 1 of Liu, as set forth in the modification above).
Regarding claim 2, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses the region in which the transparent conductive oxide pattern is disposed, is complementary to the region in which the anti-reflection layer is disposed (top layer of layer 10 in Fig. 1 of Liu in relation to 312 of Wu as set forth in modified Liu above).
Regarding claim 3, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses a projection of the transparent conductive oxide pattern on the first transparent conductive oxide layer covers a projection of the first metal electrode on the first transparent conductive oxide layer (Liu – 5 in relation to a top layer of 10 and a bottom layer of 10, adjacent to layer 4, in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses the anti-reflection layer is configured as a single layer structure (Wu – [0102], 312 in Fig. 4), and the anti-reflection layer includes a SiNx layer (Wu – [0102]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Liu does disclose a thickness of the first transparent conductive oxide layer is in a range of 70 to 120 nm (Liu – [0012]), modified Liu does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the first transparent conductive oxide layer is in a range of 20 to 60 nm, and a thickness of the transparent conductive oxide pattern is in a range of 40 nm to 100 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first transparent conductive oxide layer of modified Liu in a range of 20 to 60 nm because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the transparent conductive oxide pattern of modified Liu (top layer of layer 10 of Fig. 1 of Liu) with a thickness in a range of 40 to 100 nm because 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).
Claims 4, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 114823935 A – see equivalent US 2025/0072161 A1) in view of Wu et al. (WO 2023/197840 – see equivalent US 2025/0143005) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang (US 2023/0261120 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
While modified Liu does disclose two conductive oxide patterns spaced apart from each other (Liu – top layer of layer 10 on the left side of Fig. 1 and top layer of layer 10 on the right side of Fig. 1), modified Liu does not explicitly disclose the first metal electrode includes at least two busbars that are parallel to each other and are spaced apart from each other, each of the busbars is electrically connected to at least two fingers.
Huang discloses a heterojunction cell (abstract) and further discloses a first metal electrode including two busbars that are parallel to each other and spaced apart from each other (8011 in Fig. 2), each of the busbars is electrically connected to two fingers (8012 in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first metal electrode of modified Liu such that the first metal electrode includes two busbars that are parallel to each other and spaced apart from each other, each of the busbars electrically connected to two fingers, as disclosed by Huang, because as evidenced by Huang, the configuration is a known arrangement in the art for the formation of electrodes of a heterojunction cell, and based on the teaching of Huang, one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the first metal electrode of modified Liu such that the first metal electrode includes two busbars that are parallel to each other and spaced apart from each other, and each of the busbars electrically connected to two fingers.
Modified Liu discloses the transparent conductive oxide patterns (Liu – top layer of layer 10 on the left side of Fig. 1 and top layer of layer 10 on the right side of Fig. 1) are disposed in a one-to-one correspondence with the busbars (busbars corresponding with 5 in Fig. 1 of Liu as set forth in the modification above).
Regarding claim 11, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Liu does not explicitly disclose a photovoltaic module comprising at least one cell string, the cell string including at least two heterojunction cells.
Huang discloses a photovoltaic module comprising a cell string including heterojunction cells (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form a photovoltaic module, as disclosed by Huang, with a plurality of the heterojunction solar cells of modified Liu, because the use of the heterojunction solar cell of modified Liu in a photovoltaic module, such as the photovoltaic module disclosed by Huang, amounts to the use of a known 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 forming a photovoltaic module with a plurality of the heterojunction solar cells of modified Liu based on the teaching of Huang.
Regarding claim 12, modified Liu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Liu further discloses a photovoltaic system comprising the photovoltaic module (Huang – Fig. 3; it is noted that the photovoltaic module depicted satisfies the limitation “a photovoltaic system”).
Conclusion
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