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 Interpretation
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “wherein the first regions and the second regions are comprised in the back surface” in claim 1, the limitation is interpreted in a manner consistent with the description in paragraph [0084] of the as-filed specification in which the regions exist in the back surface of the substrate.
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 21 and 26 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, the manner in which an included angle between the at least part of the sidewalls and the bottom of the recess can be both less than or equal to 52° and greater than or equal to 58° is unclear.
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 1-3, 5-6, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 11,489,080) in view of Buchholz et al. (EP 4195299A1 – see equivalent US 2025/0048746).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a back contact solar cell (Fig. 9) comprising: a silicon substrate (C7/L39); a first doped semiconductor layer on a back surface of the silicon substrate in first regions (20 in Fig. 9; C13/L9); and a second doped semiconductor layer on the back surface of the silicon substrate in second regions (30 in Fig. 9; C13/L9), wherein the first regions and the second regions are comprised in the back surface and are alternately arranged at intervals (shown in annotated Fig. 9 below), wherein a conductivity type of the first doped semiconductor layer is opposite to a conductivity type of the second doped semiconductor layer (C13/L11), wherein the back surface of the silicon substrate comprises an isolation region, wherein the isolation region is located between a first region of the first regions and a second region of the second regions adjacent to the first region, and the isolation region separates the first doped semiconductor layer and the second doped semiconductor layer (shown in annotated Fig. 9 below), and wherein: a surface of at least one of the second regions is recessed into the silicon substrate relative to a surface of at least one of the first regions (shown in annotated Fig. 9 below); a surface of the isolation region is recessed into the silicon substrate relative to a surface of at least one of the second regions to form a recess (shown in annotated Fig. 9 below).
Chen does not explicitly disclose at least part of sidewalls of the recess is arranged obliquely relative to a bottom of the recess so that a cross-sectional area of the recess increases along a depth direction of the recess from the bottom to a top.
Buchholz discloses a back contact solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a recess (112 in Fig. 2) separating first and second doped semiconductor layers (301 and 701 in Fig. 2; 30 in relation to 20 and 40 in Fig. 2) and part of the sidewalls of the recess of the isolation region (112 and 30 in Fig. 2) are arranged obliquely relative to a bottom of the recess so that a cross-sectional area of the recess increases along a depth direction of the recess from the bottom to a top (oblique sidewall of 112 in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the recess of Chen with a part of the sidewalls of the recess arranged obliquely relative to a bottom of the recess so that a cross-sectional area of the recess increases along a depth direction of the recess from the bottom to a top, as disclosed by Buchholz, because as evidenced by Buchholz, forming a back contact solar cell with a recess between first and second doped semiconductor layers with sidewalls arranged obliquely relative to a bottom of the recess so that a cross-sectional area of the recess increases along a depth direction of the recess from the bottom to a top amounts to the use of a known shape in the art for recesses between doped semiconductor layers in a back contact solar cell, and 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).
While Chen does disclose a trench provided between the first and second doped regions in order to realize blocking between the first and second doped regions (C18/L27-30; C20/L23), Chen does not explicitly disclose a depth of the recess is less than 3000 nm.
As the manufacturing cost and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said depth of the recess, with said manufacturing cost and efficiency of operation both increasing as the depth of the recess is increased, the precise depth of the recess 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 depth of the recess 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 depth of the recess in the device of Chen to obtain the desired balance between the manufacturing cost and the operation efficiency (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).
Additionally, with regard to the limitation “a depth of the recess is less than 3000 nm,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the trench of Chen such that a depth of the recess is less than 3000 nm, 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).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (recess)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (isolation region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first region)][AltContent: textbox (first region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (second region)]
PNG
media_image1.png
331
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. It is noted that while Chen does disclose a surface shape of the trench that is in contact with the silicon substrate 10 may further have a rough texture structure disposed thereon, the disclosure encompasses a surface shape of the trench which does not have a rough texture structure due to the word “may” in the disclosure (Chen - C18/L34-36). Therefore, the limitation “a roughness of the surface of the isolation region is less than or equal to 30 microns per 10000 square micrometers” is satisfied by the disclosure of Chen because the range claimed includes a roughness of zero to 30 microns per 10000 square micrometers.
Regarding claim 3, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen further discloses the surface of the at least one of the second regions is a planar surface (shown in annotated Fig. 9 above).
While modified Chen does not explicitly disclose a depth by which the surface of the at least one of the second regions is recessed into the silicon substrate is greater than or equal to 100nm and less than or equal to 1000 nm; and the depth of the recess is greater than or equal to 300 nm and less than 2000 nm, 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 5, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen further discloses a surface passivation layer covering the first doped semiconductor layer, the second doped semiconductor layer, and the isolation region (50 in annotated Fig. 9 above); and a first passivation layer between the first regions and the first doped semiconductor layer (C8/L23; C13/L19-21), wherein the first passivation layer is a tunneling passivation layer (C8/L23), the first doped semiconductor layer is a doped polysilicon layer (C11/L19-21; C13/L19-21).
It is noted that with regard to the limitations “passivation” and “tunneling”, the structure described in modified Chen is capable of performing the functions disclosed and therefore satisfies the limitations as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen further discloses a second passivation layer between the second regions and the second doped semiconductor layer (C8/L23; C11/L27-29; C13/L19-21; porous layer depicted in Fig. 10 between the surface of the second region (shown in annotated Fig. 9 above) and second doped semiconductor layer 30), wherein the second passivation layer is a tunneling passivation layer (C8/L23; C11/L27-29), the second doped semiconductor layer is a doped polysilicon layer (C11/L19-21; C13/L19-21).
It is noted that with regard to the limitations “passivation” and “tunneling”, the structure described in modified Chen is capable of performing the functions disclosed and therefore satisfies the limitations as claimed. Regarding claim 21, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Chen does not explicitly disclose an included angle between the part of the sidewalls and the bottom of the recess, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the included angle between the part of the sidewalls and the bottom of the recess of modified Chen within the claimed range 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).
Additionally, 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 7 and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 11,489,080) in view of Li et al. (CN 106784161 A – see attached machine translation) and further in view of Buchholz et al. (EP 4195299A1 – see equivalent US 2025/0048746).
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses a back contact solar cell (Fig. 9) comprising: a silicon substrate (C7/L39); a first doped semiconductor layer on a back surface of the silicon substrate in first regions (20 in Fig. 9; C13/L9); and a second doped semiconductor layer on the back surface of the silicon substrate in second regions (30 in Fig. 9; C13/L9), wherein the first regions and the second regions are comprised in the back surface and are alternately arranged at intervals (shown in annotated Fig. 9 below), wherein a conductivity type of the first doped semiconductor layer is opposite to a conductivity type of the second doped semiconductor layer (C13/L11), wherein the back surface of the silicon substrate comprises an isolation region, wherein the isolation region is located between a first region of the first regions and a second region of the second regions adjacent to the first region, and the isolation region separates the first doped semiconductor layer and the second doped semiconductor layer (shown in annotated Fig. 9 above).
While Chen does disclose a first side surface of the first doped semiconductor layer close to the isolation region is textured (C18/L34-52), Chen does not explicitly disclose a first side surface of the first doped semiconductor layer close to the isolation region or a second side surface of the second doped semiconductor layer close to the isolation region is wave-shaped.
It is noted that Chen does disclose the means of texturing includes but is not limited to an alkali polished surface (C18/L38-39). It is further noted that paragraph [0125] of the as-filed specification describes a wet chemical etching solution used in the wet chemical process may be an alkaline wet chemical etching solution, the wet chemical process with a process temperature of greater than or equal to 60°C and less than or equal to 80°C, and a process time of greater than or equal to 40 sec and less than or equal to 200 seconds, and a volume proportion of an alkaline component (for example, NaOH or KOH) in the alkaline wet chemical etching solution may be greater than or equal to 2% and less than or equal to 20%.
Li discloses a solar cell and further discloses a wet chemical process with a process temperature of greater than or equal to 60°C and less than or equal to 80°C ([0028]), and a process time of greater than or equal to 40 sec and less than or equal to 200 seconds ([0028]), and a wet chemical etching solution used in the wet chemical process may be an alkaline wet chemical etching solution, and a volume proportion of an alkaline component (for example, NaOH or KOH) in the alkaline wet chemical etching solution may be greater than or equal to 2% and less than or equal to 20% ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to achieve the alkali polished surface of Chen using the process parameters disclosed by Li, because as evidenced by Li, the use of the wet chemical process disclosed amounts to the use of a known method in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when achieving the alkali polished surface of Chen using the disclosed wet chemical process based on the teaching of Li.
While modified Chen does disclose a surface of the isolation region is recessed into the silicon substrate relative to a surface of the at least one of the second regions to form a recess (shown in annotated Fig. 9 above), modified Chen does not explicitly disclose at least part of sidewalls of the recess is arranged obliquely relative to a bottom of the recess so that a cross-sectional area of the recess increases along a depth direction of the recess from the bottom to a top.
Buchholz discloses a back contact solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a recess (112 in Fig. 2) separating first and second doped semiconductor layers (301 and 701 in Fig. 2; 30 in relation to 20 and 40 in Fig. 2) and part of the sidewalls of the recess of the isolation region (112 and 30 in Fig. 2) are arranged obliquely relative to a bottom of the recess so that a cross-sectional area of the recess increases along a depth direction of the recess from the bottom to a top (oblique sidewall of 112 in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the recess of modified Chen with a part of the sidewalls of the recess arranged obliquely relative to a bottom of the recess so that a cross-sectional area of the recess increases along a depth direction of the recess from the bottom to a top, as disclosed by Buchholz, because as evidenced by Buchholz, forming a back contact solar cell with a recess between first and second doped semiconductor layers with sidewalls arranged obliquely relative to a bottom of the recess so that a cross-sectional area of the recess increases along a depth direction of the recess from the bottom to a top amounts to the use of a known shape in the art for recesses between doped semiconductor layers in a back contact solar cell, and 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).
With regard to the limitation “at least one of a first side surface of the first doped semiconductor layer close to the isolation region or a second side surface of the second doped semiconductor layer close to the isolation region is wave-shaped,” as set forth above both modified Chen and the as-filed specification disclose similar process parameters for the alkali etch process, and when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 22, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. It is noted that while Chen does disclose a surface shape of the trench that is in contact with the silicon substrate 10 may further have a rough texture structure disposed thereon, the disclosure encompasses a surface shape of the trench which does not have a rough texture structure due to the word “may” in the disclosure (Chen - C18/L34-36). Therefore, the limitation “a roughness of the surface of the isolation region is less than or equal to 30 microns per 10000 square micrometers” is satisfied by the disclosure of Chen because the range claimed includes a roughness of zero to 30 microns per 10000 square micrometers.
Regarding claim 23, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen further discloses the surface of the at least one of the second regions is a planar surface (shown in annotated Fig. 9 above).
While modified Chen does not explicitly disclose a depth by which the surface of the at least one of the second regions is recessed into the silicon substrate is greater than or equal to 100nm and less than or equal to 1000 nm; and the depth of the recess is greater than or equal to 300 nm and less than 2000 nm, 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 24, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen further discloses a surface passivation layer covering the first doped semiconductor layer, the second doped semiconductor layer, and the isolation region (50 in annotated Fig. 9 above); and a first passivation layer between the first regions and the first doped semiconductor layer (C8/L23; C13/L19-21), wherein the first passivation layer is a tunneling passivation layer (C8/L23), the first doped semiconductor layer is a doped polysilicon layer (C11/L19-21; C13/L19-21).
It is noted that with regard to the limitations “passivation” and “tunneling”, the structure described in modified Chen is capable of performing the functions disclosed and therefore satisfies the limitations as claimed.
Regarding claim 25, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen further discloses a second passivation layer between the second regions and the second doped semiconductor layer (C8/L23; C11/L27-29; C13/L19-21; porous layer depicted in Fig. 10 between the surface of the second region (shown in annotated Fig. 9 above) and second doped semiconductor layer 30), wherein the second passivation layer is a tunneling passivation layer (C8/L23; C11/L27-29), the second doped semiconductor layer is a doped polysilicon layer (C11/L19-21; C13/L19-21).
It is noted that with regard to the limitations “passivation” and “tunneling”, the structure described in modified Chen is capable of performing the functions disclosed and therefore satisfies the limitations as claimed. Regarding claim 26, modified Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Chen does not explicitly disclose an included angle between the part of the sidewalls and the bottom of the recess, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the included angle between the part of the sidewalls and the bottom of the recess of modified Chen within the claimed range 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).
Additionally, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-7, and 21-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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