DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action regarding application number 19/082,091, filed on 03/17/2025, which is a CON of 18/439,654, now U.S. Patent No. 12,278,295, filed on 02/12/2024, and which claims foreign priority to CN 202311330430.5, filed on 10/13/2023.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 04/20/2026.
Election of Restricted Inventions
The Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A2 (claims 1, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15-17, and 19) is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are examined below.
No claim is allowed.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The examiner finds that the prior art references are not sufficiently suggestive of a solar cell having the claimed third and fourth regions with the groove arranged as claimed, or the claimed roughness relationship.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “the respective portion” and “an adjacent portion” of the doped conductive layer in a manner that is very confusing to read, and it not at all clear or apparent what the difference must be between the two recited portions.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 12-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SMITH (US 2009/0308457 A1).
Regarding claim 1, SMITH teaches a solar cell, comprising:
a substrate (303) having electrode regions (regions immediately beneath electrodes 308/309) and non-electrode regions (regions not immediately beneath electrodes 308/309) that are alternatingly arranged in a first direction (horizontal direction), wherein the non-electrode regions include first regions and second regions (regions with and without grooves, respectively), wherein each respective first region of the first regions is abutted on one or more sides by one or more second regions of the second regions (Fig. 10, each grooved first region is abutted on either side by an ungrooved second region);
a dielectric layer (dielectric layer 313) formed over the electrode regions and the second regions and not formed over the first regions (the dielectric layers 313 is not formed in the first regions that comprise the grooves, Fig. 10);
a doped conductive layer (either n-type layer 302 or p-type layer 301) formed over the dielectric layer, wherein a respective portion of the doped conductive layer is over a corresponding portion of the dielectric layer (Fig. 10);
a passivation layer (silicon nitride layer 307) formed over the first regions and the doped conductive layer; and
a plurality of electrodes (308/309), wherein a respective electrode of the plurality of electrodes is formed over a respective electrode region of the electrode regions, and the plurality of electrodes are in electrical contact with the doped conductive layer (Fig. 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
268
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, SMITH teaches the solar cell of claim 1, wherein the substrate has a first side and a second side opposite to the first side, wherein the respective first region has at least one groove recessed toward the second side, and the passivation layer is formed in the at least one groove (see the method of trenching the rear second side with a groove through the plurality of dielectric/doped conductive layers, i.e., Figs 7A to 8A).
Regarding claim 7, SMITH teaches the solar cell of claim 1, wherein the doped conductive layer has a flat surface on a side of the doped conductive layer away from the dielectric layer (doped conductive layers 301 and 302 have flat surfaces on a side away from the dielectric layer 313, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 12, SMITH teaches the solar cell of claim 1, wherein at least one of a surface of a respective second region of the second regions or a surface of the respective electrode region includes a substantially flat surface or a concave-convex surface (at least one surface of the electrode region is flat, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 13, SMITH teaches the solar cell of claim 1, wherein a material of the dielectric layer includes at least one of silicon oxide, silicon nitride (silicon nitride, para. 16), silicon oxynitride, silicon carbide, and magnesium fluoride.
Regarding claim 14, SMITH teaches the solar cell of claim 1, wherein the respective portion of the doped conductive layer has a same conductive type as an adjacent portion of the doped conductive layer (each doped conductive layer can be arbitrarily divided into two “portions” and they will have the same conductivity type).
Regarding claim 16, SMITH teaches the solar cell of claim 1, wherein the doped conductive layer is doped with doping elements of a same type as the substrate (N-type dopant comprises phosphorus, para. 18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMITH (US 2009/0308457 A1) in view of KO (US 2011/0126906 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, SMITH teaches the solar cell of claim 2, wherein each of the at least one groove has a size in a range of 0.1µm to 50µm (claim 5), or that each of the at least one groove has a depth ranging from 0.2µm to 5µm in a direction perpendicular to a surface of the substrate (claim 6).
KO teaches that grooves in solar cells may have a depth from about 0.5-50 micrometers, and that this depth substantially reduces and/or prevents damage to the semiconductor substrate (para. 58).
Skilled artisans would have found obvious making the grooves of SMITH have a depth of 0.5-50 micrometers because this depth substantially reduces and/or prevents damage to the semiconductor substrate as taught by KO. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. Here, the prior art range overlaps with the ranges claimed.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMITH (US 2009/0308457 A1) in view of GEORGIEV (“Optimal distance between current collecting electrodes of the solar cells”).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, SMITH teaches the solar cell of claim 1, but does not disclose expressly that a ratio of a total surface area of the first regions to a total surface area of the non-electrode regions ranges from 1:6 to 20:21 (claim 8), or that a ratio of a total surface area of the respective first region to a total surface area of the respective second region ranges from 1:2 to 20:1 (claim 9).
GEORGIEV teaches that the dimensions selected between electrodes, essentially the surface area of space between electrode and non-electrode regions, is a powerful and critical result effective variable that impacts strongly the total power output of the device. The claimed ratio incorporates these dimensions, and varying this ratio would allow skilled artisans to improve cell efficiency (GEORGIEV discussed various ways to ‘tune’ the values to affect power output).
Skilled artisans would recognize the ratio of a total surface area of the first regions to a total surface area of the non-electrode regions ranges to be a result effective variable as defined by MPEP 2144.05(II)(B), and these practitioners would have found it obvious to have optimized the ratio as directed by GEORGIEV, including to values with the range claimed, in order to have achieved a desired cell efficiency. GEORGIEV is clear that selection of the dimension variables, i.e., essentially the spacing between electrodes and the dimension of the non-electrode region, affects the amount of light that passes into the solar cell and thus affects cell power output and efficiency.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMITH (US 2009/0308457 A1) in view of YANG (US 2017/0213921 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, SMITH teaches the solar cell of claim 1, but does not disclose expressly that the doped conductive layer has a first side surface facing the respective first region, and an angle between the first side surface and a surface of a corresponding second region of the second regions is less than or equal to 90° (claim 10), or that the first side surface includes a substantially flat surface or a concave-convex surface (claim 11).
YANG teaches a substantially similar solar cell as the applicant’s recited invention, and is also very similar to SMITH’s. YANG discloses that the doped conductive layer has a first side surface facing the respective first region, and an angle between the first side surface and a surface of a corresponding second region of the second regions is less than or equal to 90° and that the first side surface includes a substantially flat surface or a concave-convex surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
402
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify SMITH and configure the doped conductive layer surface forms to be flat as taught by YANG because the shape of the surface can be modified by simple substitute to yield predictable results, namely, a functional solar cell with the necessary trench separation of the conductive layers. MPEP 2143(A).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMITH (US 2009/0308457 A1) in view of ENDO (US 2017/0186894 A1).
Regarding claim 15, SMITH teaches the solar cell of claim 1, but does not disclose the distance between or width of the plurality of electrodes.
ENDO teaches a solar cell wherein a distance between adjacent electrodes of the plurality of electrodes in the first direction ranges from 0.5mm to 2mm (1.5mm), and the respective electrode has a width in the first direction ranges from 5µm to 50µm (14-90 micrometers, para. 133).
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify SMITH and select the pitch and width values for the plurality of electrodes that are claimed because these are known solutions for electrode design in the prior art of solar cell construction, and this modification requires only combining the known values according to entirely known methods to yield predictable and satisfactory results. MPEP 2143(A). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. Here, the claim ranges overlap with the ranges disclosed by ENDO and are thus prima facie evidence of obviousness and nonpatentability.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMITH (US 2009/0308457 A1) in view of DRAKE (WO 2007/120197 A2).
Regarding claim 17, SMITH teaches the solar cell of claim 1, but does not teach a module comprising a plurality of cell strings as claimed.
DRAKE teaches a solar cell module comprising a plurality of series-interconnected solar cells, adhered to a superstrate cover plate with an encapsulant adhesive such as EVA (para. 8).
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify SMITH and manufacture a solar module comprising a plurality of solar cells in order to generate more power, and by encapsulating them and supporting them with a proper cover and adhesive as taught by DRAKE.
Regarding claim 18, modified SMITH teaches the photovoltaic module of claim 17, wherein the doped conductive layer has a flat surface on a side of the doped conductive layer away from the dielectric layer (conductive layer has a flat surface away from the dielectric layer 313, SMITH, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 19, modified SMITH teaches the photovoltaic module of claim 17, wherein the doped conductive layer and the substrate are doped with doping elements of different types (substrate can be n-type and the doped conductive layer can correspond to the p-type conductive layer 301, SMITH, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 20, modified SMITH teaches the photovoltaic module of claim 17, wherein the substrate has a first side and a second side opposite to the first side, wherein the respective first region has at least one groove recessed toward the second side, and each of the at least one groove is in a shape of an inverted pyramid (see the method of trenching the rear second side with a groove through the plurality of dielectric/doped conductive layers, i.e., SMITH, Figs 7A to 8A, illustrations show at least one inverted pyramid as a texturization within the groove).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner
Prosecution Insights