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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for silicon semiconductor solar cells, does not reasonably provide enablement for any type of solar cells, including organic. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
When evaluating scope of enablement, the examiner evaluates the claim against the Wands factors whether undue experimentation would be required. The factors being:
(A) The breadth of the claims; Doping a generic solar cell including organic/amorphous/microcrystalline/polycrystalline/crystalline
(B) The nature of the invention; The application addresses doping of crystalline silicon solar cells.
(C) The state of the prior art; Those in the art understand doping as used in the application to apply to crystalline structures, not organic and any generic solar cell.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill; One of ordinary skill would not know how to form the “dope” layers required by the claim for the full breadth of the claim.
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; The inventor addresses doping of silicon only
(G) The existence of working examples; Working examples are directed to crystalline silicon
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. A doping method for each type of solar cell, i.e., organic, amorphous, etc. would need to be developed ( as not provided by applicant) to meet the claim limitations.
Claim 1 recites "a first doped conductive layer" and a "a local doping region" (Factor A). In the context of arbitrary solar cells, the term "doping"-understood by the person skilled in the art as introduction of impurities into a crystalline host material (factors C and D)-is not sufficiently well defined outside of crystalline materials (factors A, C, D, E). While some understanding may be extended to amorphous semiconductors, the concept of "doping" as used in claim 1 and substantiated by the description lacks an established meaning in other types of solar cells, such as those based on organic materials (e.g., perovskites) (factor C, D, E, H). The description provides no enabling disclosure of how doping, as claimed, is to be implemented in such systems. It only exemplifies doping and the formation of doping regions in the context of silicon-based substrates of "monocrystalline silicon, polycrystalline silicon, amorphous silicon, or microcrystalline silicon." (factor B, F, G) (See applicant’s specification para [0047]-[0148]).
It is therefore suggested to limit claim 1 to "silicon substrate, which may include one or more of monocrystalline silicon, polycrystalline silicon, amorphous silicon, or microcrystalline silicon" (Par. [0047]). It is noted that this suggestion is made only for assisting the applicant in deciding how to proceed. It in no way precludes consideration of alternative solutions submitted by the applicant. The responsibility for determining the text of the application and, in particular, for defining the subject- matter for which protection is sought remains with the applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(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, 4-8, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hallam et al. (US 2015/0017793).
Regarding claim 1, (1st rejection, fig. 11 embodiment, first element is n-type), Hallam discloses a solar cell comprising:
a substrate (111);
a first doped conductive layer (117) formed at one side of the substrate (111) (shown in fig. 11);
a local doping region formed at one side of the first doped conductive layer (117) away from the substrate (i.e., local laser melting of the top (front) surface of the wafer using a CW laser to simultaneously melt and dope the light receiving surface of the silicon, create heavily doped n+ regions 117, reads on the limitation), wherein the local doping region is doped with a same doping element as that in the first doped conductive layer and first element (i.e., n-type, phosphorous is given as example, see para [0078] and [0134]); and
a first electrode (68/69) provided at one side of the local doping region away from the first doped conductive layer and electrically connected to the local doping region (see para [0134]).
Regarding claim 1, (2nd rejection, fig. 11 embodiment, first element is p-type), Hallam discloses a solar cell, comprising:
a substrate (111);
a first doped conductive layer (p-type, 113) formed at one side of the substrate (111) (shown in fig. 11);
a local doping region (p+, 116) formed at one side of the first doped conductive layer away from the substrate (111) (see para [0134]),
wherein the local doping region is doped with a same doping element as that in the first doped conductive layer and first element (i.e., p-type, aluminum is referenced, see para [0072] and [0134]); and
a first electrode (119) provided at one side of the local doping region away from the first doped conductive layer and electrically connected to the local doping region (shown in fig. 11, see para [0134]).
Regarding claim 1, (3rd rejection, fig. 9 embodiment, back contact solar cell) Hallam discloses a solar cell comprising:
a substrate (111);
a first doped conductive layer (p-type) formed at one side of the substrate (111) (shown in fig. 9);
a local doping region (p+, 95) formed at one side of the first doped conductive layer away from the substrate (shown in fig. 9), wherein the local doping region is doped with a same doping element as that in the first doped conductive layer and first element (p-type, aluminum is referenced, see para [0072] and [0133]); and
a first electrode (76) provided at one side of the local doping region (95) away from the first doped conductive layer (p-type) and electrically connected to the local doping region (see fig. 9, para [0133]).
Regarding claim 2, Hallam (rejection 2) discloses a solar cell according to claim 1, wherein the first element is aluminum (see para [0072] and [0134]), which reads on one selected from the group consisting of aluminum element, titanium element, zinc element, zirconium element, hafnium element, molybdenum element, tungsten element, and nickel element (see discussion of rejection 2 of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Hallam discloses a solar cell according to claim 3, wherein the solar cell further comprises a first passivation layer (rejection 1, 15 and rejection 2, 73) provided at a surface of one side of the local doping region away from the first doped conductive layer (shown in fig. 11), wherein the first electrode (first rejection 68/69; second rejection 119) passes through the first passivation layer (15 and/or 73) to be electrically connected to the local doping region (117 and/or 116) (shown in fig. 11, see para [0134]).
Regarding claim 5, Hallam discloses a solar cell according to claim 1, wherein the local doping region (117 and/or 116) is provided at a portion of the first doped conductive layer corresponding to the first electrode (68/69 and/or 119) (shown in fig. 11, see para [0134]).
Regarding claim 6, Hallam discloses a solar cell according to claim 5, wherein the solar cell further comprises a first passivation layer (rejection 1, 15 and rejection 2, 73), wherein at least a part of the first passivation layer is provided at a surface of one side of the first doped conductive layer (112 and/or 113) away from the substrate (111), and the first electrode (68/69 and/or 119) passes through the first passivation layer to be electrically connected to the local doping region (shown in fig. 11, see para [0034]).
Regarding claim 7, Hallam discloses a solar cell according to claim 4, wherein the first passivation layer (73) has the same metal element as the first element (rejection 2, i.e., aluminum, see para [0134]).
Regarding claim 8, Hallam discloses a solar cell according to claim 7, wherein the first passivation layer (73) is an aluminum oxide layer (rejection 2, i.e., see para [0134]).
Regarding claim 17, Hallam (rejection 3) discloses a solar cell according to claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises P-type conductive regions (defined as area under and inclusive of P type electrode) and N-type conductive regions (defined as area under and inclusive of N type electrode) which are arranged alternately and provided at intervals (shown in fig. 9);
each of the P-type conductive regions is provided with the first doped conductive layer (i.e., aluminum is referenced, see para [0133]),
the local doping region and the first electrode which are arranged sequentially, and the first electrode is electrically connected to the local doping region (see discussion of claim 1, 3rd rejection, see also fig. 9, para [0133]); and
each of the N-type conductive regions is provided with a third doped conductive layer and a third electrode which are arranged sequentially, and the third electrode is electrically connected to the third doped conductive layer (shown in fig. 9, para [0133]).
The examiner notes the P type layer extends into the defined N-type conductive region and the N type layer extends into the defined P-type conductive region. The term comprising is open-ended and may comprise additional structure not recited (see MPEP § 2111.03).
Regarding claim 18, Hallam (rejection 3) discloses a solar cell according to claim 17, wherein the solar cell further comprises a third passivation layer (15) provided at one side of the substrate facing away from the P-type conductive regions and the N-type conductive regions (see para [0133]).
Regarding claim 19, Hallam discloses a solar cell according to claim 1, wherein a sectional shape of the local doping region is one of rectangle, triangle, semicircle and trapezoid (semicircle shown in fig. 11, see para [0134]).
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2026/0052796).
Regarding claim 1, (4th rejection, fig. 5) Wang discloses a solar cell comprising:
a substrate (400);
a first doped conductive layer formed at one side of the substrate (412);
a local doping region (411) formed at one side of the first doped conductive layer (412) away from the substrate (400),
wherein the local doping region is doped with a same doping element as that in the first doped conductive layer and first element; and
a first electrode (420) provided at one side of the local doping region (411) away from the first doped conductive layer (412) and electrically connected to the local doping region (see para [0131]-[0133], [0010]-[0014] and [0072]).
Regarding claim 16, Wang discloses a solar cell according to claim 1, wherein the solar cell further comprises:
a tunnel oxide layer (450) provided at one side of the substrate facing away from the first doped conductive layer (shown in fig. 5);
a second doped conductive layer (430) provided at one side of the tunnel oxide layer away from the substrate; and
a second electrode (440) provided at one side of the second doped conductive layer (430) away from the substrate (400) and electrically connected to the second doped conductive layer (430) (see para [0131]-[0133]).
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallam et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further as follows:
Regarding claim 10, Hallam discloses a solar cell according to claim 1, wherein in the local doping region, the first element is doped in the concentration of 1 X 1016 cm-3 to 1 X 1021 cm-3 (see para [0059]). As 1 X 1016 cm-3 is equivalent to 0.01% of total number of atoms and 1 X 1020 cm-3 is equivalent to 0.1% (available in handbooks, see MPEP 2144.03), the range of Hallam overlaps the recited range of 0.01% to 0.05% of a total number of atoms.
The court has held 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.
Regarding claim 15, modified Hallam discloses a solar cell according to claim 1, wherein along a thickness direction of the solar cell, a projected area of the local doping region is 10% to 100% of a projected area of the solar cell (see para [0016] and [0022], i.e., 4 microns (para [0016] to 100% (para [0022]), which overlaps the recited range of 10% to 100%.
The court has held 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.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallam et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kapur et al. (US 2016/0049540).
Regarding claim 3, Hallam discloses a solar cell according to claim 1, with a local doping area, i.e., p+, (see discussion of claim 1, rejection 2), but does not wherein the local doping region covers an entire surface of one side of the first doped conductive layer away from the substrate.
Kapur is analogous art to Hallam as Kapur is directed to solar cells (see abstract). Kapur discloses the solar cell structure for PESC, PERC, and PERL configurations, disclosed as alternate structures (see fig. 1A-1C, para [0003]). Kapur discloses wherein a conductive layer (i.e., p type layer, the wafer is p-type and therefore a p type layer is formed at least on one side) is formed on one side and a local doped region, i.e., p+ layer, covers and entire surface of one side of the first doped conductive layer away from the substrate (see fig. 1a, see para [0003]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the solar cell of Hallam to include a local doped region to cover an entire surface of one side of the first doped conductive layer away from the substrate depending on the type and structure of solar cell desired.
The court has held it would be obvious to combine prior art elements (i.e., Hallam with a p+ layer covering the entire surface of the conductive layer) according to known methods (as disclosed by Kapur), wherein the result is predictable. See MPEP § 2143.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ding et al. (US 2025/0176348).
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses a solar cell according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a thickness of the local doping region along a thickness direction of the solar cell is d, where 1nm< d < 200 nm. Wang does disclose the local doped region (411) is totally within the thickness of the p-type doped conductive layer (412).
Ding is analogous art to Wang as Ding discloses a solar cell with a p-doped substrate and a p-doped conductive layer on the front surface (see embodiment discussed in para [0120]-[0124]). The p-doped conductive layer, i.e., p-doped polycrystalline silicon layer, wherein the p-doped conductive layer is 100 nm in thickness, which reads on the recited range of 1nm to 200 nm.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang to form a p-type doped conductive layer on the front of the p-doped substrate that is 100 nm as disclosed by Ding as the court has held it is obvious to combine prior art elements (i.e, of Wand and Ding) according to known methods (as disclosed by Ding), wherein the result is predictable.
As the local doped region (411) is fully embedded in the modified 100 nm p-type doped conductive layer (412) of Wang, the thickness of the local doped region overlaps the recited range. The court has held 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. and alternatively Hallam et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2024/0429327).
Regarding claim 11, Wang, alternatively, Hallam disclose a solar cell according to claim 1, but do not disclose wherein a concentration of the first element in the local doping region increases along a direction away from the substrate. Hallam does disclose the laser method used for doping is able to provide a gradient, but does not disclose a specific gradient (see Hallam para [0070]).
Liu is analogous art to Wang and Hallam as Liu discloses a solar cell (see abstract). Liu discloses grading the concentration of dopant to a higher concentration at the electrode, (i.e., away from the substrate) can reduce the contact resistance (see para [0137]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang, alternately Hallam, by increasing the doping concentration away from the substrate, toward the electrode because the increased concentration can reduce contact resistance.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., alternatively Hallam et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jin et al. (CN 114784148) (US 2023/0411551 used as a translation).
Regarding claim 12, Wang, alternatively Hallam, discloses a solar cell according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the local doping region is further doped with oxygen element.
Jin is analogous art to Wang and Hallam as Jin is directed to solar cells (see abstract). Jin discloses that doping silicon with two or more dopants, a specific example being when the second dopant is oxygen, the two dopants together can be used to adjust the band gap of the layer (see para [0068]-[0071]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the local doping region of Wang and/or Hallam, (and any other silicon layer), with oxygen to adjust/tune the band gap of said layer.
Regarding claim 13, modified Wang, and alternatively modified Hallam, disclose a solar cell according to claim 12, but does not disclose wherein in the local doping region, the oxygen element accounts for 0.05% to 0.3% of a total number of atoms.
As the oxygen doping, as disclosed by Jin (see para [0068]-[0071]), impact the band gap, the concentration of oxygen is a result effective variable.
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., alternatively Hallam et al., and Jin et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2024/0429327).
Regarding claim 14, modified Wang, alternatively modified Hallam, disclose a solar cell according to claim 12, but does not disclose wherein a concentration of the oxygen element in the local doping region increases along a direction away from the substrate.
Liu is analogous art to Wang and Hallam as Liu discloses a solar cell (see abstract) . Liu discloses grading the concentration of dopant to a higher concentration at the electrode, (i.e., away from the substrate) can reduce the contact resistance (see para [0137]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang, alternately Hallam, by increasing the doping concentration of oxygen away from the substrate, toward the electrode because the increased concentration can reduce contact resistance.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (See US 2020/0007074) in view of Wang et al. (US 2026/0052796), alternatively Hallam et al. (US 2015/0017793), as applied to claim 1 above.
Peterson discloses a photovoltaic module, comprising:
a cell string formed by connecting a plurality of solar cells;
an encapsulation layer for covering a surface of the cell string; and
a cover plate for covering a surface of the encapsulation layer away from the cell string (see para [0002]-[0015]).
Peterson does not disclose the solar cells are according to claim 1 above.
Wang, alternatively Hallam, are analogous art to Peterson as Wang and Hallam are directed to solar cells (see rejections of claim 1 above). Wang, alternatively Hallam, disclose solar cells according to claim 1 above (see rejections of claim 1 above).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the solar cell module of Peterson by substituting one known device (i.e., the solar cell according to claim 1 of Wang, alternatively Hallam) for another known device (the solar cell of Peterson), wherein the result is predictable, (i.e., a solar cell module comprising the solar cell of claim 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See priority documents of: Shen et al. (US 2023/0387337), Yang et al. (US 2023/0387336), Mao et al. (US 2023/0395740), Wang et al. (US 2023/0402552).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 M-F.
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 at (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 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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721