DETAILED ACTION
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.03.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 07/13/2026 does not place the Application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-11 and 13 are currently pending. In response to Office Action mailed on 05/11/2026, Applicant has amended claim 1 and 13.
Status of the Rejections
Due to Applicant’s amendment of claim 1, all rejections from the Office Action mailed on 05/11/2026 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (US 2014/0299187 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses solar cell (100, figure 6, [0035-0092]) comprising:
a semiconductor substrate having:
a base region (base area 110, [0038] and fig. 6);
an emitter region (emitter area 20, fig. 6 and [0040]) having a conductivity type (p-type, [0040]) opposite (n-type, [0040]) to that of the base region (110), the emitter region (20) being disposed on a front surface (top surface) of the semiconductor substrate (see figure 6); and
a plurality of back surface field regions (second portions 30b of back surface filed area 30, fig. 6) having the same conductivity type as the base region (110) ([0084]) and a doping concentration higher than the base region (110) (30b is formed by doping the base area, [0084], and thus has higher doping concentration than the base region 110),
the plurality of back surface field regions (30b) being locally disposed on a back surface (bottom surface) of the semiconductor substrate (see figure 6 or annotated figure below) and separated from each other so that the base region (110) is located between the plurality of back surface field regions (30b) from the back surface (bottom surface) of the semiconductor substrate (see annotated figure below that shows base region 110 being between two back surface field regions 30b);
PNG
media_image1.png
336
938
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first passivation layer (21, fig. 6 and [0051]) disposed on the emitter region (20) (see fig. 6);
a plurality of first electrodes (24, [0051] and fig. 6) connected to the emitter region (20) by penetrating through the first passivation layer (21) (see fig. 6),
a second passivation layer (31, fig. 6 and [0063]) disposed on the back surface of the semiconductor substrate (see fig. 6);
a capping film (second anti-reflective film 32) disposed on the second passivation layer (31) (see figure 6 and [0063]); and
a plurality of second electrodes (34, fig. 6 and [0063]) connected to the plurality of back surface field regions (30b), respectively, by penetrating through the second passivation layer (31), wherein the plurality of second electrodes (34) includes a plurality of finger electrodes extending in a first direction and least one bus bar electrode extending in a second direction crossing the first direction and connecting the plurality of finger electrodes,
wherein the solar cell has a bi-facial structure that receives light to the back surface of the semiconductor substrate through the second passivation layer (31) and receives light to the front surface of the semiconductor substrate through the first passivation layer (21) (layers 21-22 and 31-32 are made from transparent materials and thus allow light to pass through both front and back surfaces, [0053-0054] and [0065-0066]),
wherein the capping film (32) includes aluminum oxide ([0066]),
the capping film (32) is an outermost film on the back surface of the semiconductor substrate (see fig. 6),
the capping film (32) covers only a part of the back surface of the semiconductor substrate (capping film does not cover the part of the substrate where in the second electrode 34 is formed, see fig. 6), and
the second passivation layer (31) includes a silicon nitride film ([0065]).
Regarding claim 2, Chang further discloses the capping film (32) includes aluminum oxide ([0066]) as in the case of instant application (see instant claim 1). Thus, the capping film (32) must be adapted to prevent a material for forming the plurality of second electrodes (34) from diffusing into the second passivation layer (31) in a process of forming the plurality of second electrodes (34), as in the case of the instant application.
Regarding claim 6, Chang further discloses the base region (110) and the plurality of back surface field regions (30b) are n-type ([0061]), and the emitter region is p-type ([0050]) (see also [0039-0040]).
Regarding claim 11, Chang further discloses a distance between two adjacent back surface field regions (30b) of the plurality of back surface field regions (30b) is greater than a width of at least one of the plurality of back surface field regions (30b) (see fig. 6 that shows the gap between the 30bs is greater than the width of 30b).
Regarding claim 13, Chang further discloses the base region (110) and the plurality of back surface field regions (30b) are n-type ([0061]), the second passivation layer (31) is in direct contact with the back surface (bottom surface) of the semiconductor substrate (110) (see figure 6), and the silicon nitride film (31) has a fixed positive charge based on the plurality of back surface field regions (30b) having the n-type as it is made of same material as in the case of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied above, and further in view of Hilali et al. (US 2009/0194153 A1) (cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 3-4, Chang is silent to the base region having a resistivity of more 0.76 Ωcm and less than 1.05 Ωcm.
However, Hilali teaches that in routine and conventional solar cell configurations, the resistivity of the n-type wafer used can be between 0.005-44 Ωcm, and preferably between 0.7-2.5 Ωcm ([0032]).
Therefore, as Chang is silent as to the resistivity of the base region, a skilled artisan would look to other routine and conventional teachings in the art to determine the based region resistivity. As such, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to incorporate the teachings of Hilali which expressly discloses the known, routine and conventional resistivity of solar cells to arrive at the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see In re Wertheim and MPEP § 2144.05).The claimed subject matter simply combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Claims 5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2011/0265870 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Chang does not disclose that a total area of the plurality of back surface field regions (30b) is less than a total area of the back surface of the semiconductor substrate (see figure 6 that shows the BSF regions 30b are formed only in the selected regions, and thus the area is BSF regions 30b is less than the semiconductor substrate). However, Chang does not explicitly disclose that a ratio of a total area of the plurality of back surface field regions to a total area of the back surface of the semiconductor substrate is 1:10 to 1:2
Park discloses a solar cell (embodiment of fig. 1 and [0033-0060]) comprising a semiconductor substrate (substrate 110, emitter layer 120, and BSF layer 160, fig. 1 and [0034]) having: a base region (substrate 110, which has n-type conductivity, [0035]); an emitter region (emitter layer 120) having a conductivity type (p-type, [0037] and [0039]) opposite to that of the base region (110), the emitter region (120) being disposed on a front surface (top surface) of the semiconductor substrate (see fig. 1); and a plurality of back surface field regions (BSF regions 160) having the same conductivity type (n-type, [0052]) as the base region (110) and a doping concentration higher than the base region (110) ([0052]), the plurality of back surface field regions (160) being locally disposed on a back surface (bottom surface) of the semiconductor substrate and separated from each other (see figure 1 that shows regions 160 being separated from each other) so that the base region (110) is located between the plurality of back surface field regions (160) from the back surface of the semiconductor substrate (see fig. 1).
Park in figure 1 teaches a ratio of a total area of the plurality of back surface field regions to a total area of the semiconductor substrate is 0.3, as admitted by Applicant in the Remarks filed on 11/08/2022 of parent application 14/478,935, which is within the claimed range of 1:10 to 1:2 or 0.1-0.5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used a ratio of 0.3 as taught by Park to form the BSF regions on semiconductor substrate of Chang in selected areas as shown by Park and also desired by Chang.
Regarding claim 8, Chang does not disclose that the plurality of the back surface field regions has a sheet resistance of 5 Ω/sq to 90 Ω/sq.
Park discloses a solar cell (embodiment of fig. 1 and [0033-0060]) comprising a semiconductor substrate (substrate 110, emitter layer 120, and BSF layer 160, fig. 1 and [0034]) having: a base region (substrate 110, which has n-type conductivity, [0035]); an emitter region (emitter layer 120) having a conductivity type (p-type, [0037] and [0039]) opposite to that of the base region (110), the emitter region (120) being disposed on a front surface (top surface) of the semiconductor substrate (see fig. 1); and a plurality of back surface field regions (BSF regions 160) having the same conductivity type (n-type, [0052]) as the base region (110) and a doping concentration higher than the base region (110) ([0052]), the plurality of back surface field regions (160) being locally disposed on a back surface (bottom surface) of the semiconductor substrate and separated from each other (see figure 1 that shows regions 160 being separated from each other) so that the base region (110) is located between the plurality of back surface field regions (160) from the back surface of the semiconductor substrate (see fig. 1).
Park further discloses that the plurality of the back surface field regions (160) has a sheet resistance of 30-80 Ω/sq ([0052], which is within the claimed range of 5 Ω/sq to 90 Ω/sq.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the sheet resistance as taught by Park to form the back surface field regions of Chang such that recombination of holes and electrons can be prevented (see [0052-0053] of Park)
Regarding claim 9, Chang does not disclose that a width of at least one of the plurality of the back surface field regions (30b) is greater than a width of a corresponding second electrode (34).
Park discloses a solar cell (embodiment of fig. 1 and [0033-0060]) comprising a semiconductor substrate (substrate 110, emitter layer 120, and BSF layer 160, fig. 1 and [0034]) having: a base region (substrate 110, which has n-type conductivity, [0035]); an emitter region (emitter layer 120) having a conductivity type (p-type, [0037] and [0039]) opposite to that of the base region (110), the emitter region (120) being disposed on a front surface (top surface) of the semiconductor substrate (see fig. 1); and a plurality of back surface field regions (BSF regions 160) having the same conductivity type (n-type, [0052]) as the base region (110) and a doping concentration higher than the base region (110) ([0052]), the plurality of back surface field regions (160) being locally disposed on a back surface (bottom surface) of the semiconductor substrate and separated from each other (see figure 1 that shows regions 160 being separated from each other) so that the base region (110) is located between the plurality of back surface field regions (160) from the back surface of the semiconductor substrate (see fig. 1).
Park further discloses that a width (W3, fig. 1) of at least one of the plurality of the back surface field regions (160) is greater than a width (W2, fig. 1) of a corresponding second electrode (190) ([0052] and claim 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formed the width of at least one of the plurality of the back surface field regions greater than the width of a corresponding second electrode as taught by Park to form the device of Chang such that recombination of holes and electrons can be prevented (see [0052-0053] of Park).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2011/0284074 A1) (cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 7, Chang is silent to the doping concentration of the back surface field region being within the range of 3x1015/cm3 to 15 x1015/cm3. The Examiner notes that 15 x1015/cm3 is equivalent to 1.5 x1016/cm3.
However, Liu teaches a doping concentration of a back surface field layer (106) of 1015-1021/cm3 allows for balanced stress between semiconductor layers (e.g., 104/106) as well as an appropriate rear surface electric field for the back surface field layer, and reduces the recombination of electrons and holes ([0034]). The combination would necessarily result in a doping concentration of the back surface field region which overlaps the claimed range of 3x1015/cm3 to 15 x1015/cm3; in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan when forming Chang’s device to look to other teachings in the art, including Liu, to use a doping concentration of 1015-1021/cm3 for the back surface field region as this is taught as an acceptable level of concentration to create an appropriate rear surface electric field and reduce the recombination of holes and electrons in the device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Park as applied above, and further in view of Ha et al. (US 2013/0206222 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Chang as modified by Park does not explicitly disclose that the width of the at least one of the plurality of the back surface field regions is 200 µm to 1,000 µm, and the width of the corresponding second electrode is 30 µm to 300 µm.
Ha teaches a BSF region with a width of 100-600 µm ([0080]) to allow for a device with improved transfer efficiency of carriers through the back surface field region (see [0026-0028], [0035], and [0115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the width as taught by Ha to form the BSF regions of Chang as modified by Park to allow for a device with improved transfer efficiency of carriers through the back surface field region as shown by Ha.
Thus, the claimed range (200-1000 µm) of width of the BSF regions overlaps with the disclosed range (100-600 µm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)) (MPEP § 2144.05 - (I)).
Since Park explicitly discloses that the width (W3, fig. 1) of at least one of the plurality of the back surface field regions (160) is greater than the width (W2, fig. 1) of a corresponding second electrode (190) ([0052] and claim 6), the width of the second electrode of the modified device must be less than 100-600 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range of 30-300 µm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)) (MPEP § 2144.05 - (I)).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang as applied above.
Regarding claim 11, Chang further discloses a distance between two adjacent back surface field regions (30b) of the plurality of back surface field regions (30b) is greater than a width of at least one of the plurality of back surface field regions (30b) (see fig. 6 that shows the gap between the 30bs is greater than the width of 30b).
Alternatively, selection of element’s dimension is considered to be a matter of design choice, depending upon the dimensions and gradient present in the installation site, among other considerations. In the absence of evidence of criticality, selection of width of the back surface field regions as claimed is considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Also note that in 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,278,298 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of patent encompass all the limitations of the pending claims. Instant claims are broader than the claims of the patent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-13 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by the amendments.
Applicant argues that Park fails to disclose that the second passivation film comprises silicon nitride film.
This argument is directed to the claims as amended and is moot in view of new ground of rejection as presented above.
Correspondence/Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7am - 4pm.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached on 303-297-4684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GOLAM MOWLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
