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
Newly submitted claim 14 directed to an invention or specie that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 14 is directed to a solar cell in which the capping film is made of MgF2, ZnS or CeO2, wherein previously presented claims 1-13 directed to a solar cell in which the capping film is made of aluminum oxide. Thus, the claims are directed to distinct species requiring different or distinct material to form the capping film.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 14 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 03/31/2026 does not place the Application in condition for allowance.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending. In response to Office Action mailed on 01/07/2026, Applicant has amended claim 1 and. Claim 14 is withdrawn from consideration as being part of non-elected specie.
Status of the Rejections
Due to Applicant’s amendment of claim 1, all rejections from the Office Action mailed on 01/07/2026 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is presented below.
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 1-2, 5-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2011/0265870 A1) in view of Ha et al. (US 2013/0206222 A1) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2012-0077710 A) (refer to translation as provided) (all references cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, 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);
a first passivation layer (first protective layer 130 and/or first anti-reflection layer 140) (fig. 1 and [0040-0041]) disposed on the emitter region (120);
a plurality of first electrodes (150, [0034] and fig. 1) connected to the emitter region (120) by penetrating through the first passivation layer (130 and/or 140) (see fig. 1),
a second passivation layer (second protective layer 170, and/or the silicon nitride layer that is disposed on the second protective layer 170, [0034] and [0085] – silicon nitride layer is not shown in the figure 1), disposed on the back surface of the semiconductor substrate;
a capping film (second anti-reflection layer 180) disposed on the second passivation layer (170); and
a plurality of second electrodes (190) connected to the plurality of back surface field regions (160), respectively, by penetrating through the second passivation layer (170 and/or silicon nitride layer) (see fig. 1),
wherein the plurality of second electrodes (190) includes a plurality of finger electrodes (vertical lines or fingers 160) as shown in fig. 1) extending in a first direction (vertical direction),
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 (170 and/or silicon nitride layer on layer 170) and receives light to the front surface of the semiconductor substrate through the first passivation layer (130, 140 or 130+140) ([0057-0058]),
wherein the capping film (180) is an outermost film on the back surface of the semiconductor substrate (see fig. 1), the capping film (180) covers only a part of the back surface of the semiconductor substrate (see fig. 1).
Park further discloses the capping film (180) is an anti-reflecting film that is formed on the back or rear surface (see fig. 1) and is made, for example, of silicon nitride ([0055], [0041], [0085]). In the embodiment of figure 1, the capping film (180) is the outermost film (see figure 1).
It is further noted that the description of paragraph [0085] of Park is not directed to the embodiment of figure 1. Even if the description of paragraph [0085] of Park is directed to the embodiment of figure 1, it appears that the description of paragraph [0085] contains a typo because there would be no need to provide additional silicon nitride layer on a silicon nitride anti-reflection layer 180. Examiner believes the reference intended to mean “After the first protective layer 130 and the second protective layer 170 are formed, silicon nitride (SiNX) is deposited [[on]] as a first anti-reflection layer 140 and a second anti-reflection layer 180”.
If the description of paragraph [0085] does not contain a typo, the SiNx AR layer 180 in combination with the SiNx layer as disclosed in paragraph [0085] is interpreted as the claimed capping film.
Although Park discloses the plurality of second electrodes (190) includes the plurality of finger electrodes (vertical lines or fingers 160) as shown in fig. 1) extending in the first direction (vertical direction), Park does not explicitly disclose least one bus bar electrode extending in a second direction crossing the first direction and connecting the plurality of finger electrodes.
However, Ha teaches a back electrode (190 including 190a and 190b shown in Figs. 3-4) of a solar cell comprising a plurality of finger electrodes (190a) extending in a first direction (X-X’ direction) and a bus bar electrode (190b) extending in a second direction (Y-Y’ direction) crossing the first direction and connecting the plurality of finger electrodes (190a) (see Figs. 3-4). Ha further discloses that the bus bar electrode (190b) is the current elector electrode and collects current from the plurality of the finger electrodes ([0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the bus bar electrode as taught by Ha on the rear face of Park such that current can be collected from the plurality of finger electrodes, as shown by Ha.
Park further discloses the capping film (180) is an anti-reflecting film that is formed on the back or rear surface (see fig. 1) and is made, for example, of silicon nitride ([0055] and [0041]). However, Park does not explicitly disclose that the capping or anti-reflecting film (180) is made of aluminum oxide.
Lee discloses a bifacial solar cell (fig. 2) wherein a capping or anti-reflecting film (13-2) is formed as an outermost film (see fig. 2), and is made of silicon nitride or aluminum oxide (see page 6 of translation). Thus, Lee explicitly discloses that silicon nitride and aluminum oxide are art-recognized equivalent materials that can be used to form anti-reflecting film of a solar cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the aluminum oxide as taught by Lee to form the rear surface capping or anti-reflecting film of Park because substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious (MPEP §2144.06 (II)).
Regarding claim 2, Park as modified by Lee discloses that the capping film is formed of same material (aluminum oxide) as in the case of the instant application, and it must be adapted to prevent a material for forming the plurality of second electrodes from diffusing into the second passivation layer in a process of forming the plurality of second electrodes, as in the case of the instant application.
Regarding claim 5, 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.
Regarding claim 6, Park further discloses that the base region (110) and the plurality of back surface field regions are n-type ([0035] and [0052]), and the emitter region is p-type ([0037]).
Regarding claim 8, 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.
Regarding claim 9, 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).
Regarding claim 10, 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). However, 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 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)).
Regarding claim 11, Park further discloses a distance between two adjacent back surface field regions (160) of the plurality of back surface field regions (160s) is greater than a width (W3) of at least one of the plurality of back surface field regions (160) (see fig. 1 that shows the gap between the 160s is greater than W3).
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.
Regarding claim 12, Park further discloses that the second passivation film (combination of layer 170 and silicon nitride film, [0085]) includes a silicon nitride film (silicon nitride layer that is disposed on the second protective layer 170, [0034] and [0085]).
Regarding claim 13, Park further discloses that wherein the base region (110) and the plurality of back surface field regions (160) are n-type ([0035] and [0052]), the second passivation layer (170+silicon nitride film) is in direct contact with the back surface of the semiconductor substrate, and the silicon nitride film must have a fixed positive charge based on the plurality of back surface field regions having the n-type as it is made of same material as in the case of the instant application.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2011/0265870 A1) in view of Ha et al. (US 2013/0206222 A1) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2012-0077710 A) (refer to translation as provided) (all references cited in IDS) as applied above, and further in view of Hilali et al. (US 2009/0194153 A1) (cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 3-4, Park 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 Park 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).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2011/0265870 A1) in view of Ha et al. (US 2013/0206222 A1) and Lee et al. (KR 10-2012-0077710 A) (refer to translation as provided) (all references cited in IDS) as applied above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2011/0284074 A1) (cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 7, modified Park 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 reduce 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 Park’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.
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 1-13 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 capping film (180) is the outermost layer because of a SiNx layer as disclosed in [0085]).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Park explicitly discloses in the embodiment of figure 1 that the capping film (180), which is an anti-reflecting film made, for example, of silicon nitride ([0055] and [0041]) is the outermost film (see figure 1).
It is further noted that the description of paragraph [0085] of Park is not directed to the embodiment of figure 1. Even if the description of paragraph [0085] of Park is directed to the embodiment of figure 1, it appears that the description of paragraph [0085] contains a typo because there would be no need to provide additional silicon nitride layer on a silicon nitride anti-reflection layer 180. Examiner believes the reference intended to mean “After the first protective layer 130 and the second protective layer 170 are formed, silicon nitride (SiNX) is deposited [[on]] as a first anti-reflection layer 140 and a second anti-reflection layer 180”.
If the description of paragraph [0085] does not contain a typo, the SiNx AR layer 180 in combination with the SiNx layer as disclosed in paragraph [0085] is interpreted as the claimed capping film.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights