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, Species A, claims 1-9 and 17 in the reply filed on 02/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/23/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the semiconductor-metal contact structure” in lines 1-2 of claim 1 lacks antecedent basis .
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: a typographical error, it appears, “410second” in line 4 should be second.
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 4-6 and 17 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.
Regarding claim 4, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “smaller than 50,000 um2” and the claim also recites “smaller than 12,500 um2” and “smaller than 4,000 um2” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 5, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “less than 100 um” and the claim also recites “ less than 40 um” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 6, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “length less than 500 um” and the claim also recites “less than 250 um”, “less than 100 um”, and “less than 50 um”, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For the purpose of examination only the broadest ranges in claims 4-6 are considered.
Regarding claim 17, the claim has unclear statutory class because it is a method claim dependent on the device claim 10, which, in turn, refers to itself.
For the purpose of examination claim 17 is assumed to be a dependent claim of claim 1, not on claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,2, 8, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Borland et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2012/0085401, hereafter Borland.
Regarding claim 1, Borland discloses (Figs 3-4, par. [0032]-[0046]) a method for producing a semiconductor-metal contact structure of a solar cell, in which a first paste (silver paste, par. [0033]), ink or suspension containing metal particles (par. [0034]) is first applied locally to the semiconductor surface [320] at a plurality of points and fired or sintered (par. [0039]) in a first firing or sintering process, so that local, mutually separate semiconductor-metal contact regions [351] are produced (Fig. 3C), and in which local, mutually separated semiconductor-metal contacts thus produced are subsequently bonded together [380] to form the semiconductor-metal contact structure of the solar cell by a second application of a paste (par. [0041]-[0042]), ink or suspension containing metal particles and a second, separate firing or sintering or curing process.
Regarding claim 2, Borland further discloses (par. [0045]) characterized in that the second firing or sintering or curing process takes place at a lower temperature than the first firing or sintering process.
Regarding claim 8, Borland further discloses (Fig. 3B, par. [0039]) characterized in that the first paste [350], ink or suspension containing metal particles is silver-containing.
Regarding claims 9, Borland further discloses (Fig. 3D, par. [0041]-[0042]) characterized in that a copper-containing or aluminum-containing paste, ink or suspension is used in the second application of a paste, ink or suspension containing metal particles.
Regarding claim 17, Borland further discloses (Fig. 3D, par. [0041]-[0042]) characterized in that the second metal particle-containing paste, ink or suspension is a copper-containing or aluminum- containing paste, ink or suspension.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borland et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2012/0085401, hereafter Borland.
Regarding claim 3, Borland discloses everything as applied above. The limitation of claim 3,
“characterized in that the first firing or sintering process is a fast process with a peak temperature above 700°C for less than 60 seconds” is obvious over Borland.
Borland discloses (par. [0039]) a preferable range of temperature which lies inside the claimed range and a time range (from several seconds to several tens of minutes) which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP, latest edition, 2144.05.I).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borland et. al., U.S. Pat. Pub. 2012/0085401, hereafter Borland, in view of CN215266318, hereafter ‘318.
Regarding claim 4, Borland discloses everything as applied above. Borland fails to explicitly disclose
characterized in that the area of the individual local semiconductor-metal contacts separated from each other is smaller than 50,000um² , preferably smaller than 12, 500µm², most preferably smaller than 4, 000µm².
However, ‘318 discloses (Figs 1,2, p.4, top line) characterized in that the area of the individual local semiconductor-metal contacts separated from each other is smaller than 50,000um² , preferably smaller than 12, 500µm², most preferably smaller than 4, 000µm² (the disclosed diameter of contacts [4] is 35 um as average diameter, p.4 of translation, top line).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the instant application to replace a grid line solar cell electrode structure of Borland with the solar cell grid line structure of ‘318, because ‘318 teaches (abstract) that such a structure reduces both series resistance of the solar cell and metallization cost.
Regarding claim 5, Borland in view of ‘318 discloses everything as applied above. ‘318 further discloses (Figs 1, 2, p.4, top line)
characterized in that the individual local, mutually separated semiconductor-metal contacts [4] are circular and that their largest dimension (35 µm) is less than 100µm, preferably less than 40µm.
Regarding claim 6, Borland in view of ‘318 discloses everything as applied above. ‘318 further discloses (Figs 1, 2, p.4, top line)
characterized in that the individual local semiconductor-metal contacts separated from each other are shaped with a length (35 µm) which is less than 500µm and preferably less than 250µm and with a width which is less than 100 µm and preferably less than 50µm.
Borland in view of ‘318 fails to explicitly disclose line-shaped contacts as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the circular contact shape of ‘318 to a line contact shape because changes in shape of contacts or electrodes are normally within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP, latest edition, 2144.04.IV.B)
Regarding claim 7, Borland in view of ‘318 discloses everything as applied above. ‘318 further discloses (Figs 1, 2)
characterized in that the individual local semiconductor-metal contacts [4] separated from each other are connected to each other [1] in the second step to form a pattern of parallel lines [1].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR V BARZYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, BRITT HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/VICTOR V BARZYKIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights