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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending.
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 1-20 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 1
The preamble “method for preparing a TopCon battery substrate” renders de claim indefinite because is not clear what constitutes a TopCon battery substrate (e.g., a TopCon solar cell, a silicon wafer, etc.). Therefore, it is not clear what is being prepared. Additionally, the limitation “double-sided grooved silicon matrix of a TOPCon battery” is unclear because one cannot reasonably ascertain what is meant by “silicon matrix,” whether the matrix is already a part of a TopCon battery or merely intended for use in one.
Regarding claim 2
Step (b) of claim two recites “removing the coating layers on a from side and a back side of the silicon matrix…” However, while step (a) previously recited “a coating layer”, there is no prior recitation of multiple coating layers formed on the front side and back side. Further, the claim does not previously recite more than one passivation film being deposited or the passivation layer being formed on more than one surface. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 3-20
Claims 3-20 are rejected at least for their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Progress of plated metallization for industrial bifacial TOPCon silicon solar cells”, Grübel et al. (hereinafter “Grübel”) in view of CN112768564A, Yang et al. (hereinafter “Yang”) and CN114613669A, Hong et al. (hereinafter “Hong”).
Regarding claims 1 and 17
Grübel teaches a method for preparing a TOPCon battery substrate (corresponding to a TopCon solar cell) [Fig. 1 and Page 616, section 2.1], comprising:
providing a double-sided grooved silicon matrix of a TOPCon battery (corresponding to n-type silicon substrate having anti-reflective coatings laser ablated on both sides) [Fig. 1 and Page 616, section 2.1]; and
carrying out a thermal repair treatment on the double-sided grooved silicon matrix of the TOPCon battery (high temperature treatments which recovers laser damage is performed) [Page 6161, Col. 2].
Grübel does not teach performing a light injection treatment on a front side and a back side of the double-sided grooved silicon matrix of the TOPCon battery after the thermal repair treatment, respectively, wherein the TOPCon battery substrate is obtained.
Yang teaches a light-injection step performed on a TopCon battery to improve the passivation effect [paras. 0012-0013], where a light injection treatment is performed on a front side and a back side of the double-sided grooved silicon matrix of the TOPCon battery after a thermal repair treatment (the entire Topcon battery comprising a metallized silicon based battery is subjected to a light injection treatment after a heating stage), respectively, wherein the TOPCon battery substrate is obtained [paras. 0018-0020].
Hong teaches a method for repairing a solar cell battery comprising performing a light injection treatment on a front side and a back side of a silicon matrix of a solar cell battery in order to reduce defect recombination centers and decrease minority carrier recombination on both the front and back surfaces, thereby improving the minority carrier lifetime and significantly enhancing the performance of the battery to be repaired [paras. 0008, 0028 and 0050-0055].
Grübel, Yang and Hong are analogous inventions in the field of solar cell battery substrates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Grübel to comprise a light injection treatment of the double-sided grooved silicon matrix of the TOPCon battery, as in Yang, for the purpose of improving the passivation effect and conversion efficiency of the TopCon battery [Yang, paras. 0010-0013].
It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply the light injection treatment of a front side and a backside of the double-sided grooved silicon matrix for the purpose of reducing defect recombination centers and decrease minority carrier recombination on both surfaces of the TopCon battery thereby further enhancing the performance [Hong, paras. 0008, 0028 and 0050-0055].
Regarding the light injection treatment being performed after the thermal repair, it is noted that in the absence of criticality or new and unexpected results, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious (See MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 2
Modified Grübel teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the double-sided grooved silicon matrix of the TOPCon solar cell is prepared by the following steps:
a) depositing a passivation film (corresponding to SiNx layer) on a surface of a silicon matrix (n-type doped silicon bulk material) of a TOPCon solar cell to form a coating layer [Fig. 1, Page 616, Cols.1-2, section 2.1]; and
b) removing the coating layers on a front side and a back side of the silicon matrix by using a laser grooving method, and forming a grid line pattern on a surface of the coating layer (the antireflective coating was laser ablated on the front and rear sides using a frequency tripled UV (355 nm) pulsed laser) [Grübel, Page 616, Col. 2, lines 1-3].
Regarding claim 4
Modified Grübel teaches the method as set forth above, wherein in the step b), a laser for laser grooving is an ultraviolet picosecond laser or an ultraviolet nanosecond laser (the antireflective coating was laser ablated on the front and rear sides using a frequency tripled UV (355 nm) pulsed laser) [Grübel, Page 616, Col. 2, lines 1-3].
Regarding claim 18
Modified Grübel a double-sided TOPCon battery as set forth above, comprising a double-sided electroplating treatment for the TOPCon battery substrate prepared by the method set forth above [Grübelm, Fig. 1 and Page 616, Yang, paras. 0010-0013; Hong, paras. 0008, 0028 and 0050-0055].
While Modified Grübel teaches electroplating [Grübel Page 616, cols. 1-2], the limitation “obtained by a double-sided electroplating treatment…” is considered a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim 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, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113].
Regarding claim 19
Modified Grübel the double-sided electroplated TOPCon battery as set forth above, wherein the double-sided electroplating treatment comprises one or a combination of at least two of nickel electroplating, copper electroplating, and tin electroplating (electroplating of Ni, Cu and Ag) [Grübel, Page 616, cols. 1-2 and Fig. 1].
While disclosed in the art, the limitation “electroplating” is considered a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim 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, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113].
Regarding claim 20
Modified Grübel the double-sided electroplated TOPCon battery as set forth above, wherein the double-sided electroplating treatment is a combination of the nickel electroplating, the copper electroplating, and the tin electroplating (electroplating of Ni, Cu and Ag) [Grübel, Page 616, cols. 1-2 and Fig. 1].
While disclosed in the art, the limitation “electroplating” is considered a product-by-process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim 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, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) [MPEP 2113].
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grübel in view of Yang and Hong, as applied to claims 1, 2, 4 and 17-20 above, and further in view of CN 115020544 A, Yang et al. (hereinafter “Yang’544”).
Regarding claims 3 and 6
Modified Grübel teaches the method as set forth above, wherein in in the step a), the passivation film is a silicon nitride film [Grübel, Fig. 1 and Page, 616, Col. 1, section 2.1]; and
wherein in the step b), a grooving width of a finger in the grid line pattern formed after the laser grooving is 10-15 μm (laser contact opening (LCO) width of 5.5, 9, and 14 μm) [Grübel, Page 616, Col. 2].
Modified Grübel is silent to a thickness of the passivation film is 80-100 nm (instant claim 3) and to a grooving depth in the grid line pattern formed after the laser grooving is 80-100 nm (instant claim 6).
Yang’544 teaches a TopCon battery the thickness of a silicon nitride passivation layer is in the range of 70-90 nm [Page 2, background section and Page 5].
Modified Grübel and Yang’544 are analogous inventions in the field of TopCon solar cells. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the silicon nitride film of modified Grübel to have a thickness in a range of 70-90 nm, as in Yang’544 as such is a suitable thickness range for a silicon nitride layer providing surface passivation in a TopCon solar cell.
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 2144.05].
Examiner notes that it would have been obvious for the grooving depth in the grid line pattern to be consistent with the thickness of the passivation film. Accordingly, modified Grübel teaches a grooving depth in the grid line pattern formed after the laser grooving of 70-90 nm, which overlaps with the claims range of 80-100 nm.
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 2144.05].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grübel in view of Yang and Hong, as applied to claims 1, 2, 4 and 17-20 above, and further in view of CN 115172515 A, Qu et al. and CN 102439735 B, Crafts.
Regarding claim 5
Modified Grübel does not teach, wherein in the step b), a laser beam of the laser for the laser grooving is a top-hat beam, wherein laser peak power is 0.5-2 W in a process of the laser grooving.
Qu teaches a method for making a solar cell, wherein when the power range of a laser is too layer, it may damage the surrounding intrinsic polysilicon layer when the laser, the surrounding of the crystal defect, reducing the passivation effect of the passivated contact if the power of the laser is too small, the crystallization degree of the high crystallization area formed is not required [Page, 8].
Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the laser peak power (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired electrode pattern without damaging the surrounding silicon layers. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Modified Grübel does not teach a top-hat beam.
Crafts teaches a solar cell subjected to a laser irradiation treatment for forming an electrode pattern, wherein a top-hat laser provides an accurate laser profile [Page 5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Grübel such that the laser is a top hat beam for the purpose of providing accurate patterning of the underlying layers.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grübel in view of Yang and Hong, as applied to claims 1, 2, 4 and 17-20 above, and further in view of US 2009/0142874, Arai.
Regarding claim 7
Modified Grübel teaches the method as set forth above.
Modified Grübel does not teach, wherein in the step b), an auxiliary gas for the laser grooving is one selected from nitrogen, argon, and helium.
Arai shows that auxiliary gases used in laser treatments include nitrogen and argon [para. 0075].
Therefore, because Arai teaches choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Arai teaches that nitrogen or argon leads to the anticipated success, said atmosphere is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 8-11
The prior art of record, fails to teach or fairly suggest a method “wherein the thermal repair treatment comprises the following steps: placing the double-sided grooved silicon matrix of the TOPCon solar cell with the front side upward in an atmosphere of protective gas for the thermal repair treatment,”
in the context of the other limitations recited in claim 1.
Claims 9-11 are allowed for their dependency on claim 8.
Regarding claim 12
The prior art of record, fails to teach or fairly suggest the light injection treatment comprising the following steps:
making a first side of the double-sided grooved silicon matrix of the TOPCon battery after the thermal repair treatment upwards, and placing the double-sided grooved silicon matrix of the TOPCon battery after the thermal repair treatment in an atmosphere of protective gas for the light injection treatment to obtain a resulting product; and
turning the resulting product over to make a second side upwards, and placing the resulting product in the atmosphere of the protective gas for the light injection treatment, to render a treated TOPCon solar cell substrate,”
in the context of the other limitations recited in claim 1.
Claims 13-16 are allowed for their dependency on claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights