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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 112531043 A, hereinafter referred to as Yang ‘043, cited on 06/16/2025 IDS, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yang ‘043 discloses a solar cell ([n0005]) comprising: a substrate ([n0049]; cell substrate 1); a transparent conductive film layer disposed on a side of the substrate ([n0049], lines 2 and 3); and a composite metal grid structure disposed on a side, away from the substrate, of the transparent conductive film layer ([n0049], 4 and 5 on 3 in Fig. 1), the transparent conductive film layer being electrically connected to the composite metal grid structure ([n0049], transparent conductive layer 3 and electrode 6 in Fig. 1), wherein the composite metal grid structure comprises a first electrode layer ([n0049], [n0053], 4 in Fig, 1) and a second electrode layer ([n0049], [n0054], 5 in Fig. 1) that are stacked (4 in relation to 5 in Fig. 1), and the first electrode layer is located between the transparent conductive film layer and the second electrode layer (4 in relation to 3 and 5 in Fig. 1).
While Yang ‘043 does disclose a width of the composite metal grid structure is 0.05 – 5 mm (n0055]), Yang ‘043 does not explicitly disclose a width of the composite metal grid structure is less than or equal to 17 microns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite metal grid structure of Yang ‘043 with a width of less than or equal to 17 microns instead of a width of 0.05 – 5 mm, 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).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yang ‘043 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Yang ‘043 further discloses the first electrode layer is a silver layer ([n0053]), and the second electrode layer is a copper electrode layer ([n0054]).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “seed layer,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is made, and it is noted that a limitation directed to the manner in which an apparatus is made is not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yang ‘043 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Yang ‘043 does not explicitly disclose an aspect ratio of the composite metal grid structure is greater than 0.5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the metal grid structure of modified Yang ‘043 with an aspect ratio of 0.5 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).
Additionally, such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yang ‘043 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Yang ‘043 further discloses the solar cell is an amorphous silicon solar cell ([n0051]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yang ‘043 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Yang ‘043 further discloses the substrate comprises a first side surface and a second side surface opposite to each other (top and bottom side surfaces of 1 in Fig. 1), and the transparent conductive film layer is an ITO layer ([n0052]) that is arranged, as an entire surface, on the second side surface (3 in relation to 1 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yang ‘043 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Yang ‘043 does disclose the first electrode layer is a coating layer having a thickness of 100 – 1000 nm (Yang ‘043 - [n0053]), and the second electrode layer is a coating layer with a width of 0.05 – 5 mm (Yang ‘043 - [n0055]); modified Yang ‘043 does not explicitly disclose the second electrode with a thickness ranging from 5 to 60 microns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the second electrode layer of modified Yang ‘043 with a thickness ranging from 5 to 60 microns 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).
It is noted that with regard to the disclosed thickness range of the first electrode layer, and the disclosed width range of the second electrode layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 112531043 A, hereinafter referred to as Yang ‘043, cited on 06/16/2025 IDS, see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yang et al. (US 2014/0034126, hereinafter referred to as Yang ‘126).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yang ‘043 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Yang ‘043 does disclose welding reinforcement layer 9 (Yang ‘043 - [n0056]) on the first and second electrode layers (Yang ‘043 - 9 in relation to 4 and 5 in Fig. 1); modified Yang ‘043 does not explicitly disclose the composite metal grid structure further comprises an anti-oxidation protection layer wrapping around the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer.
Yang ‘126 discloses a solar cell ([0035]) and further discloses a moisture absorbing protective layer ([0045]) wrapping around an electrode layer (140 in relation to 128 in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a protective layer, as disclosed by Yang ‘126, around the electrode layers of modified Yang ‘043, because as taught by Yang ‘126, the protective layer absorbs and protects against penetrating moisture ([0045]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 112531043 A, hereinafter referred to as Yang ‘043, cited on 06/16/2025 IDS, see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Iannelli et al. (US 2016/0126401).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yang ‘043 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Yang ‘043 does disclose the substrate comprises a first side surface and a second side surface opposite to each other (Yang ‘043 - top and bottom surfaces of 1 in Fig. 1), modified Yang ‘043 does not explicitly disclose at least one of the first side surface or the second side surface is a textured surface, a height difference on the textured surface is not greater than 2 microns, and the transparent conductive film layer is conformally arranged with the textured surface.
Iannelli discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a first side surface is a textured surface ([0059]), and a transparent conductive film layer is conformally arranged with the textured surface ([0059] discloses the top surface of the silicon solar cell is textured before a TCO layer is formed on the silicon solar cell to reduce the reflection due to mismatch in refractive index at the top surface of the silicon solar cell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to texture the top surface of the silicon solar cell of modified Yang ‘043, as disclosed by Iannelli, because as taught by Iannelli, the top surface of the silicon solar cell is textured before a TCO layer is formed on the silicon solar cell to reduce the reflection due to mismatch in refractive index at the top surface of the silicon solar cell ([0059]).
While modified Yang ‘043 does not explicitly disclose a height difference on the textured surface is not greater than 2 microns, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the textured surface of modified Yang ‘043 such that a height difference on the textured surface is not greater than 2 microns 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 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 112531043 A, hereinafter referred to as Yang ‘043, cited on 06/16/2025 IDS, see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yuda et al. (US 2015/0270419).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yang ‘043 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Yang ‘043 does disclose the composite metal grid structure is arranged in a grid shape (Yang ‘043 - [n0055]), modified Yang ‘043 does not explicitly disclose a transmittance of the composite metal grid structure is greater than 80%.
Yuda discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses the relationship between the gap between grid electrodes and electrical resistivity ([0060]).
As the light transmittance and electrical resistivity are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the gap between grid electrodes, the precise gap between the grid electrodes would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed light transmittance cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the gap between the grid electrodes in the apparatus of modified Yang ‘043 to obtain the desired balance between light transmittance and electrical resistivity (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yang ‘043 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Yang ‘043 does not explicitly disclose the composite metal grid structure is in a polygonal, a circular, or a random grid shape, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite metal grid structure of modified Yang ‘043 in a polygonal, a circular, or a random grid shape because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 112531043 A, hereinafter referred to as Yang ‘043, cited on 06/16/2025 IDS, see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of King et al. (US 5,487,792 A).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yang ‘043 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Yang ‘043 does disclose the composite metal grid structure is in electrical contact with the transparent conductive film layer (Yang ‘043 - 4 and 5 in relation to 3 in Fig. 1), modified Yang ‘043 does not explicitly disclose a transparent insulating layer disposed on a side, away from the substrate, of the transparent conductive film layer, the transparent insulating layer is provided with a trench, and the composite metal grid structure is disposed in the trench.
King discloses a solar cell and further discloses a transparent insulating layer
(abstract; C6/L1-10; it is noted that 78 is transparent as it is located on light incident grid lines 74), the transparent insulating layer is provided with a trench, the metal grid lines are disposed in the trench (74 in trenches of 76 and 78 in Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to encapsulate the solar cell of modified Yang ‘043, as disclosed by King, because as taught by King, polymer 78 protects grid lines and the electrode from harsh environmental conditions and layer 76 forms a protective barrier around the grid lines and electrode (C6/L3-10).
Modified Yang ‘043 discloses the transparent insulating layer (King - 76 and 78 in Fig. 6) is disposed on a side, away from the substrate, of the transparent conductive film layer (Yang ‘043 – layer 3 in Fig. 1), and the composite metal grid structure (Yang ‘043 – 4 and 5 in Fig. 1) is disposed in the trench (King – trench of 76 and 78 in relation to 74 in Fig. 6).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 112531043 A, hereinafter referred to as Yang ‘043, cited on 06/16/2025 IDS, see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sheng et al. (US 2013/0102133).
Regarding claim 13, modified Yang ‘043 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Yang ‘043 does disclose the substrate comprises a first side surface and a second side surface opposite to each other (Yang ‘043 - top and bottom surfaces of 1 in Fig. 1), the first side surface is provided with the transparent conductive film layer and the composite metal grid structure (Yang ‘043 - 3, 4, and 5 in relation to 1 in Fig. 1), and the second side surface is provided with a transparent conductive layer (Yang ‘043 - 2 in relation to 1 in Fig. 1); modified Yang ‘043 does not explicitly disclose the transparent conductive layer is an anti-reflection layer.
Sheng discloses a solar cell ([0032]) and further discloses the use of a transparent conductive layer as an anti-reflection layer ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the transparent conductive layer of modified Yang ‘043 as an anti-reflection layer, as disclosed by Sheng, because as taught by Sheng, transparent conductive oxide layers may serve as anti-reflection layers which reduce reflection of light from the solar cell surface, for example, by providing a graded refractive index through which light may travel to the underlying layers of the solar cell ([0034]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the limitation “width ≤ 17 microns” is in direct response to the need for higher transmittance on the incident light side, and that this design motivation is completely absent from Yang ‘043.
In response to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that a bifacial solar cell, such as the solar cell of Yang ‘043, receives light from both sides of the solar cell. Yang ‘043 discloses a reduction in silver slurry use and a reduction in electrode cost (abstract and background section). Even if Yang ‘043 does not explicitly disclose the width is in direct response to the need for higher transmittance on the incident light side, a modification of the width in Yang does not constitute a patentable difference between the claimed invention and the structure disclosed by Yang. As set forth in the office action, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the composite metal grid structure of Yang ‘043 with a width of less than or equal to 17 microns instead of a width of 0.05 – 5 mm, 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).
Applicant argues that reducing Yang ‘043’s grid line width from 50 - 500 microns to ≤ 17 microns would dramatically increase resistance.
In response to Applicant’s argument, reducing ‘043’s grid line width would reduce silver usage and electrode cost. Yang ‘043 discloses a reduction in silver slurry use and a reduction in electrode cost (abstract and background section). The choice of width of the grid electrode is dependent on the desired balance between material cost and operation efficiency.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to make such a change to Yang ‘043’s back-side electrode, because the only conceivable benefit of a narrower width – reduced shading – is irrelevant for a back-side electrode that does not need to transmit light. Applicant further argues that the change would sacrifice electrical performance without any countervailing advantage.
In response to Applicant’s argument, as noted above, a bifacial solar cell, such as the solar cell of Yang ‘043, receives light from both sides of the solar cell. Additionally, Yang ‘043 discloses a reduction in silver slurry use and a reduction in electrode cost.
Reducing ‘043’s grid line width would reduce silver usage and electrode cost. The choice of width of the grid electrode is dependent on the desired balance between material cost and operation efficiency.
Applicant argues that modifying Yang ‘043’s back-side electrode to achieve such a narrow width would destroy its intended purpose without any predictable benefit.
In response to Applicant’s argument, Applicant does not provide evidence showing that reducing the width disclosed by Yang ‘043 would destroy its intended purpose. As noted above, Yang ‘043 discloses a reduction in silver slurry use and a reduction in electrode cost.
It is further noted that Applicant has not provided evidence supporting the criticality of the width being ≤ 17 microns. Absent a showing of criticality of the claimed width, modification of the width disclosed by Yang ‘043 does not result in a patentable difference between the claimed invention and the disclosure of Yang ‘043.
Unexpected results must be established by factual evidence (MPEP 716.01(c)). Mere conclusions in the as-filed specification and Applicant’s Remarks, without evidence in support of the assertions, are insufficient in showing the criticality of the claimed range. MPEP 716.02(d) II. states “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside of the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).” It is also well settled that where patentability is predicated upon a change in a condition of a prior art composition, such as a change in size, concentration or the like, the burden is on the applicant to establish with objective evidence that the change is critical, i.e., it leads to a new, unexpected result. In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
It is noted that the amendment to claim 5 overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth in the previous office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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