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 1-7 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the as-filed specification does not describe the solar cell as being part of the disclosed apparatus. Instead, the as-filed specification in paragraph [0012] describes an apparatus of manufacturing a point-contact solar cell, and further describes the apparatus comprises a carrying device configured to support a solar cell. Claims 2-7 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1. It is noted that the originally claimed invention is directed to the apparatus, rather than being directed to the method of manufacturing the solar cell, or being directed to the solar cell. The claims are treated as if they are directed to an apparatus for manufacturing a point-contact solar cell in a manner consistent with the description of the as-filed specification.
Claims 1-7 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, while the as-filed specification does describe “During the pulse-on time, photoelectric effect is induced along will illumination by the laser, generating locally high current and heat, and thus sintering through the anti-reflective layer beneath the metallic electrode subjected to the high-frequency pulsed voltage” ([0011]), and further describes “a light source 360 which is configured to generate light 362 is used to illuminate the area adjacent to the metallic electrode 324, and scan it rapidly” ([0031]); the as-filed specification does not describe “a light source generating light into the substrate under the electrode to induce a photoelectric effect therein” as recited in lines 13 and 14 of claim 1. Claims 2-7 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1.
Claims 1-7 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 a point-contact forming apparatus for manufacturing a point-contact solar cell comprises a solar cell is unclear. Claims 2-7 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (CN 118231489 A – see attached machine translation) in view of Liu et al. (CN 117712221 A – see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Jin discloses an apparatus (apparatus used to perform MCP process disclosed in [n0028]) comprising: a solar cell comprising a substrate and an electrode disposed on a surface of the substrate ([n0028]); a conducting module electrically connected to the solar cell ([n0067] discloses the positive terminal contacts the front electrode of the battery); a high-frequency ([n0067] discloses 5 to 100 kHz) pulsed ([n0067]) reverse-bias power supply ([n0082]) electrically connected to the conducting module and the electrode ([n0067] discloses the power supply electrically connected to the positive terminal and the electrode); and a light source generating light into the substrate ([n0082]).
Jin does not explicitly disclose a carrying device supporting the solar cell.
Liu discloses an apparatus comprising a carrying device supporting a solar cell ([n0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a carrying device, as disclosed by Liu, to support the solar cell of Jin, because as evidenced by Liu, the use of a carrying device to support a solar cell in an apparatus used in solar cell manufacturing amounts to the use of a known component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when including a carrying device in the apparatus of Jin based on the teaching of Liu.
With regard to the limitations “point-contact forming” and “for manufacturing a point-contact solar cell,” statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115.
It is noted that with regard to the limitations “wherein the high-frequency pulsed reverse-bias power supply is configured to provide a high-frequency pulsed voltage to the electrode via the conducting module, wherein the high-frequency pulsed voltage is a reverse bias voltage and has a frequency of about 1 kHz to 10 MHz and a duty cycle of about 5% to 95%,” and “wherein, as the high-frequency pulsed reverse-bias power supply applies the high-frequency pulsed voltage to the electrode of the solar cell via the conducting module, the light source illuminates and scans a surface of the solar cell at a power density of 10 W/m2, thereby forming a plurality of discontinuous conductive regions in the solar cell,” the limitations are directed to the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be used, and a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
With regard to the limitation “under the electrode to induce a photoelectric effect therein,” it is noted that 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 2, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein the high-frequency pulsed voltage is a reverse bias voltage being 50%-99% of a breakdown voltage of the solar cell,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 3, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein the high-frequency pulsed voltage is not less than a breakdown voltage of the solar cell,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 4, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein the high-frequency pulsed voltage is a reverse bias voltage being 100%-150% of a breakdown voltage of the solar cell,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 5, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Jin further discloses the light source is a laser device (Jin – [n0067],[n0082]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Modified Jin does not explicitly disclose a cooling device configured to dissipate
heat from the solar cell or the carrying device.
Liu discloses an apparatus for manufacturing a solar cell ([n0001]) and further discloses a cooling device configured to dissipate heat from the solar cell ([n0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a cooling device, as disclosed by Liu, in the apparatus of modified Jin, because as taught by Liu, the cooling assembly cools the battery cells ([n0006]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Jin discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Jin further discloses the cooling device is a cooling device using gas flow (Liu – [n0008]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the limitation of “a solar cell comprising a substrate and an electrode disposed on a surface of the substrate is inherently supported by the disclosure in at least paragraph [0028]. In response to Applicant’s argument, while paragraph [0028] of the as-filed specification does describe a solar cell comprising a substrate and an electrode disposed on a surface of the substrate, the as-filed specification does not describe the solar cell as being part of the disclosed apparatus, as set forth in the 35 USC § 112(a) rejection above.
Applicant argues that the preamble is not merely a statement of intended use but is an essential definition of the apparatus’s core identity, distinguishing it from generic semiconductor tools, and that the prior art fails to disclose an apparatus dedicated to this specific purpose. Applicant further states that according to MPEP § 2111.02 “Any terminology in the preamble that limits the structure of the claimed invention must be treated as a claim limitation.” Additionally, Applicant argues that the term “point-contact forming apparatus” limits the structure because it implies a specific configuration capable of focusing energy to create microscopic conductive points.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the claims do not require a specific configuration capable of focusing energy to create microscopic conductive points.
As set forth in the office action, with regard to the limitations “point-contact forming” and “for manufacturing a point-contact solar cell,” statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1-7 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