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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Specifically, Applicant has not enabled one of ordinary skill in the art to make the first and second conductive structures claimed, and Applicant has not enabled one of ordinary skill in the art to make the first and second conductive structures such that a number ratio of the second conductive structure to the first metal particles is 1:4000 to 1:1. While the as-filed specification does describe a manufacturing process in paragraphs [00121] through [00135], the as-filed specification does not describe the method in which one skilled in the art would make a conductive region which contains first and second conductive structures having the shapes claimed, and having the first and second sub-structures with the shapes claimed, with the specific ratio of second conductive structures to first metal particles being within the range of 1:4000 to 1:1.
Wands Analysis: [Note MPEP 2164.01(a)]
(A) Breadth of claims:
The limitations of the claims are broad in that they merely state structure, respective shapes, and number ratio.
(B) The nature of the invention:
The invention is a solar cell.
(C) The state of the prior art:
Given the state of the prior art, the claimed conductive region which contains first and second conductive structures having the shapes claimed, and having the first and second sub-structures with the shapes claimed, with the specific ratio of second conductive structures to first metal particles being within the range of 1:4000 to 1:1 requires a more detailed disclosure by the Applicant in order to enable one skilled in the art to produce the claimed structure.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill:
One of ordinary skill in this art is considered to be a scientist, skilled in the methods of photovoltaic design and processes, with knowledge of standard photovoltaic devices, and familiar with parameters that affect the formation and performance of such devices.
(E) The level of predictability in the art:
The level of predictability in the art is considered to be low, inasmuch as there are numerous variables known to affect photovoltaic device manufacturing and performance.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor:
The inventor does not provide adequate direction as to how to formulate a process which forms a structure which satisfies the claim limitations. The specification describes the claimed structure with language that is essentially the same as that recited in the claims or entirely conventional in the art. There is not adequate guidance as to what the specific process parameters should be, beyond the general description provided in paragraphs [00121] through [00135] of the as-filed specification, in order to produce a conductive region with a structure that satisfies the limitations recited in the claim(s).
(G) The existence of working examples:
There are no examples in the instant specification that provide details as to how to make a conductive region which satisfies the structure claimed.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure:
The Applicant has not enabled one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to produce the invention. An undue level of experimentation would be required for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to produce the structure of the conductive region of the claimed invention.
In light of the above considerations, the Applicant has not enabled one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the claimed invention.
Claims 12 and 14-17 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. Specifically, lines 19 and 20 recite the limitations “a shape of wheat grain” and “a shape of wheat ears,” respectively, however, the shapes required to satisfy the respective limitations are unclear because different types of wheat have grains with different shapes. Additionally, the shape of a wheat grain changes throughout its development. Similarly, wheat ears have shapes dependent on the manner in which the parts are grown, and have differing shapes throughout their life. Claims 14-17 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 12.
Claim 17 is 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. Specifically, claim 17 recites the limitation "the solar cells" in line 2, however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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 12, 14-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, CN116759465A (hereinafter referred to as CN ‘465, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 12, CN ‘465 discloses a solar cell comprising a silicon substrate ([n0081]); a doped semiconductor layer, wherein the doped semiconductor layer is provided on the silicon substrate (120 in Fig. 4; [n0095]); a metal electrode in contact with the doped semiconductor layer (130 in Fig. 4; [n0098], [n0129]); a first conductive region provided at a contact interface between the doped semiconductor layer and the metal electrode (140 in Fig. 4), wherein a mutual contact between the doped semiconductor layer and the metal electrode is physical contact (contact between 120 and 130 as depicted in annotated Fig. 4 below), and the first conductive region has: a first conductive structure, the first conductive structure comprising a plurality of first metal particles distributed in the first conductive region ([n0076]), the first metal particles having a spherical shape (141 in Fig. 5), at least part of the first conductive structure is in physical contact with the doped semiconductor layer ([n0104] lines 6 and 7); a second conductive structure, wherein the second conductive structure is radial ([n0120]; shown in annotated Fig. 13 below), at least part of the second conductive structure is directly in contact with the first metal particles (shown in annotated Fig. 13 below), and a radial direction of the second conductive structure is a direction towards the metal electrode (shown in annotated Fig. 13 below), wherein the metal electrode, the first metal particles, and the second conductive structure all have a same metal element ([n0076]).
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (physical contact)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
428
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (second conductive structure)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (first metal particles)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
228
321
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is noted that if annotated Fig. 13 above does not anticipate the second conductive structure is radial, and a radial direction of the second conductive structure is a direction towards the metal electrode, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the second conductive structure depicted in annotated Fig. 13 above such that the second conductive structure is radial, and a radial direction of the second conductive structure is a direction towards the metal electrode because such a 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).
CN ‘465 does not explicitly disclose the second conductive structure comprises a plurality of stripe-shaped first sub-structures diverging towards the metal electrode; any one of the first sub-structures is composed of a plurality of second sub-structures, any one of the second sub-structures is in a shape of wheat grain, and a plurality of the second sub-structures are combined together to form the first sub-structure in a shape of wheat ears.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the second conductive structure such that the second conductive structure comprises a plurality of stripe-shaped first sub-structures diverging towards the metal electrode; any one of the first sub-structures is composed of a plurality of second sub-structures, any one of the second sub-structures is in a shape of a wheat grain, and a plurality of the second sub-structures are combined together to form the first sub-structure in a shape of wheat ears, because such a 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).
CN ‘465 further discloses a number ratio of the second conductive structure to the first metal particles is 1:1 (shown in annotated Fig. 13 above).
Regarding claim 14, modified CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. CN ‘465 further discloses a particle size of the first metal particles is 20 nm – 35 nm ([n0122]).
Regarding claim 15, modified CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. CN ‘465 further discloses a dielectric layer provided between the silicon substrate and the doped semiconductor layer (110 in Fig. 4; [n0093]).
Regarding claim 17, modified CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. CN ‘465 further discloses a photovoltaic module (Fig. 19), wherein the photovoltaic module comprises the solar cell (101 in Fig. 19), several of the solar cells being connected in series to obtain a solar cell string (101 connected by 104 in Fig. 19); and a packaging structure (102 and 103 in Fig. 19), wherein the solar cell string is packaged in the packaging structure (101 and 104 in relation to 102 and 103 in Fig. 19).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN116759465A (hereinafter referred to as CN ‘465, see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Ortega et al. (“Fully low temperature interdigitated back-contacted c-Si(n) solar cells based on laser-doping from dielectric stacks”).
Regarding claim 16, modified CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set
forth above.
Modified CN ‘465 does not explicitly disclose the doped semiconductor layer
comprises an n-type doped semiconductor layer and a p-type doped semiconductor layer, the n-type doped semiconductor layer and the p-type semiconductor layer are arranged in an interdigitated arrangement on a backlight surface of the silicon substrate, and an isolation region is provided between the n-type doped semiconductor layer and the p-type doped semiconductor layer; and the metal electrode comprises a first metal electrode and a second metal electrode, the first metal electrode and the n-type doped semiconductor layer being in contact with each other, and the second metal electrode and the p-type doped semiconductor layer being in contact with each other.
Ortega discloses a solar cell and further discloses a doped semiconductor layer comprising an n-type doped semiconductor layer and a p-type doped semiconductor layer (Fig. 1a), the n-type doped semiconductor layer and the p-type doped semiconductor layer are arranged in an interdigitated arrangement on a backlight surface of a silicon substrate (abstract), and an isolation region is provided between the n-type doped semiconductor layer and the p-type doped semiconductor layer (a-SiCx(n) stack in Fig. 1a); and the metal electrode comprises a first metal electrode and a second metal electrode, the first metal electrode and the n-doped semiconductor layer being in contact with each other, and the second metal electrode and the p-doped semiconductor layer being in contact with each other (Ti/Al electrodes depicted in Fig.1a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the contact formation method disclosed by modified CN ‘465 on an interdigitated back contact cell, such as the cell disclosed by Ortega, because as evidenced by Ortega, the use of laser processing techniques to form the contacts of an interdigitated back contact cell is known in the art, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when using laser processing techniques, such as those disclosed by modified CN ‘465, to form the contacts of an interdigitated back contact solar cell based on the teaching of Ortega.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues paragraph [0090] of the present application states the number ratio of the second conductive structure 12 to the first metal particles 111 can be calculated by measuring the number of the second conductive structure 12 and the number of the first metal particles 111 in any 10 micron x 10 micron region.
In response to Applicant’s argument, claim 12 does not require or specify that the number ratio of the second conductive structure to the first metal particles is calculated by measuring the number of the second conductive structure and the number of the first metal particles in any 10 micron x 10 micron region. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the number ratio of the second conductive structure to the first metal particles is calculated by measuring the number of the second conductive structure and the number of the first metal particles in any 10 micron x 10 micron region) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the data in Table 1 clearly demonstrates that within the range 1:4000 to 1:1, the second conductive structures can significantly improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency resulting in unexpected outcomes.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the structure claimed is not commensurate in scope with the structure which produced the results of Table 1 of the as-filed specification. For example, the claimed structure is not commensurate with the structure described in paragraphs [0146] through [0154] of the as-filed specification.
Applicant has not established that the claimed ratio is critical. 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).
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Applicant’s assertions of
unexpected results constitute mere argument (MPEP 716.01(c)).
Unexpected results must be established by factual evidence; mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification do not suffice. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1977) (quoting In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
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.
The claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 |. A. and KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
It is noted that CN '465 discloses in paragraph [n0027] "the conductive contact sites can also serve as carrier transmission channels, enhancing the ability of carriers to be transmitted from the doped conductive layer to the first electrode, thereby increasing the number of carriers in the doped conductive layer transmitted to the first electrode, increasing the carrier concentration, and thereby improving the fill factor of the solar cell, increasing the open circuit voltage and short circuit current, and improving the photoelectric conversion efficiency of the solar cell," and CN '465 further discloses in paragraph [n0028] "The conductive particle agglomerates are dendritic in shape, and carriers can be transmitted along the extension direction of the dendrites, providing a longer transmission channel for the carriers and further enhancing the transmission of the carriers," therefore, both the as-filed specification and CN '465 describe improved carrier transmission/transport. As set forth in the office action, a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant.
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