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.
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 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the term “dendritic” in CN ‘465 refers to branched tree-like structures, but there is no disclosure of stripe-shaped first sub-structure that are themselves composed of wheat-grain-shaped second sub-structures aggregated into wheat-ear shapes.
In response to Applicant’s argument, as set forth in the office action, 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).
Applicant argues that the particular divergent structure feature enables the
second sub-structure to have a higher degree of divergence, providing larger area in contact with the metal electrode, which is beneficial to further enhance carrier transport capability.
In response to Applicant’s argument, 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. Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence that the configuration in which the second conductive structure is radial, and the radial direction of the second conductive structure is a direction toward the metal electrode, produces improved carrier transmission/transport performance compared to the carrier transmission/transport performance disclosed in CN '465.
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)).
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).”
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 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 argues the first metal particles are the constituent parts of the first conductive structure, while the first conductive structure and the second conductive structure are two distinct, co-existing structures contained within the first conductive region. In response to Applicant’s argument, there is nothing recited in the claim(s) to preclude an interpretation in which the limitation "the first conductive structure comprising a plurality of first metal particles distributed in the first conductive region" is satisfied by the disclosure in paragraph [n0076] of CN '465 which describes multiple conductive particles. Annotated Fig. 13 depicts an interpretation of the teaching of CN '465 which satisfies the limitation "a second conductive structure, wherein the second conductive structure is radial, at least part of the second conductive structure is directly in contact with the first metal particles."
It is further noted that even if the claim(s) required the first conductive structure
and the second conductive structure to be two distinct, co-existing structures contained within the first conductive region, CN ‘465 discloses structures, which correspond to the first and second conductive structures claimed as set forth above, which are distinct and co-existing within the first conductive region.
Applicant argues that in CN ‘465, the first electrode 130 is not in direct contact with the doped conductive layer 120, and that they are separated by a eutectic conductive layer 140. In response to Applicant’s argument, CN ‘465 discloses direct contact between the first electrode 130 and the doped conductive layer 120 as set forth in the Office action.
Applicant argues that the first conductive region is provided at a contact interface between the doped semiconductor layer and the metal electrode. In response to Applicant’s argument, this limitation is satisfied as set forth in the above in the Office action.
With regard to Applicant’s arguments directed to the limitation “a radial direction of the second conductive structure is a direction towards the metal electrode,” the limitation is satisfied as set forth in the Office action. It is further noted in the Office action 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).
Applicant argues that the structural features may improve the contact performance between the doped semiconductor layer and the metal electrode, reduce the transport loss of carriers, and further improve the photoelectric conversion efficiency of the solar cell ([0082-[0087] of the specification).
In response to Applicant’s argument and as set forth above, 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. Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence that the configuration in which the second conductive structure is radial, and the radial direction of the second conductive structure is a direction toward the metal electrode, produces improved carrier transmission/transport performance compared to the carrier transmission/transport performance disclosed in CN '465.
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)).
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).”
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 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 argues that when the number ratio of the second conductive structure to the first metal particles is controller within the claimed range, the open circuit voltage and the contact performance of the solar cell may be better balanced, and the occurrence of phenomena such as increasing damage to the doped semiconductor layer or the silicon substrate or increasing contact resistance can be reduced. Applicant further asserts that CN ‘465 provides no teaching or suggestion of the critical ratio.
In response to Applicant’s argument, 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).
As set forth above, 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.
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)).
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).”
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 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 argues Fig. 13 of CN ‘465 is merely a schematic structural diagram and cannot represent the actual number of structures shown therein.
In response to Applicant’s argument, one skilled in the art would interpret Fig. 13 of CN ‘465 as disclosing the limitation claimed as set forth in the office action.
It is noted that with regard to Applicant’s argument directed to the Ortega reference, Ortega is relied upon in the rejection of claim 16, and Ortega is not relied upon in the rejection of claim 12.
It is further noted that the claim amendment overcomes the 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