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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 13 of claim 1 appears to be missing the article “a” between the words “include” and “silicon”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grant et al. (“Activation of Al2O3 surface passivation of silicon: Separating bulk and surface effects”).
Regarding claim 1, Grant discloses a solar cell (abstract L2) comprising: a solar cell including a surface (Fig. 5; bulk silicon surface); and a passivation stack formed on the surface (Si(O), Al, and O in Fig. 5a – f), wherein the passivation stack includes a first passivation layer (SiO2 in Fig. 5i – j) and a second passivation layer formed over the first passivation layer in a first direction away from the surface (Al2O3 in Fig. 5i – j); the passivation stack further includes an intermediate passivation layer, the intermediate passivation layer is formed between the first passivation layer and the second passivation layer, the intermediate passivation layer and the first passivation layer both include a silicon element, and the intermediate passivation layer and the second passivation layer include a same metal element (Fig. 5a - f depict an intermediate layer between the interface oxide layer and the aluminum oxide layer which includes silicon and aluminum); the intermediate passivation layer has a first surface contacting the first passivation layer and a second surface contacting the second passivation layer, an atomic content of the silicon element at the first surface is higher than an atomic content of the silicon element at the second surface (Fig. 5a – f depict the at. % of silicon at a higher value adjacent to the interface oxide layer relative to the at. % of silicon adjacent to the aluminum oxide layer), and an atomic content of the aluminum element at the first surface is lower than an atomic content of the aluminum element at the second surface (Fig. 5a – f depict the at % of aluminum at a higher value adjacent to the aluminum oxide layer relative to the at. % of aluminum adjacent to the interface oxide layer).
With regard to the limitations “segmented” and “segmentation surface,” the
limitations are directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 2, Grant discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein the segmented solar cell is an N-cut solar cell formed by segmenting an original solar cell, N is a positive integer greater than or equal to 2,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It is further noted that with regard to the limitations “segmented,” “segmenting,” and “segmented solar cell,” the limitations are directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 8, Grant discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Grant further discloses a material of the intermediate passivation layer includes an oxide of the silicon element and an oxide of the metal element (Fig. 5 depicts an intermediate layer between the interface oxide layer and the aluminum oxide layer which includes silicon oxide and aluminum oxide).
Regarding claim 10, Grant discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Grant further discloses a concentration profile in which the silicon element decreases along a direction from first to second passivation layers (Fig. 5), and in which the aluminum element increases in a direction from first to second passivation layers (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Grant discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Grant further discloses the first passivation layer includes a third surface away from the second passivation layer, and a fourth surface facing to the second passivation layer (SiO2 in Fig. 5i – j); wherein an atomic content of silicon element at the third surface is higher than an atomic content of the silicon element at the fourth surface (Fig. 5), and an atomic content of oxygen element at the third surface is lower than an atomic content of the oxygen element at the fourth surface (Fig. 5a – f; O at. % profile).
Regarding claim 17, Grant discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Grant further discloses the second passivation layer includes a fifth surface away from the first passivation layer, and a sixth surface facing to the first passivation layer (Al2O3 in Fig. 5i – j); and wherein an atomic content of oxygen element at the sixth surface is higher than an atomic content of the oxygen element at the fifth surface (Figures 5a and 5b depict atomic content of oxygen higher at the surface facing the silicon oxide layer), and an atomic content of metal element at the sixth surface is lower than an atomic content of the metal element at the fifth surface (Figures 5a – 5f show a lower atomic content of Al on a surface facing the silicon oxide layer).
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 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant et al. (“Activation of Al2O3 surface passivation of silicon: Separating bulk and surface effects”) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Grant discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Grant depicts an atomic concentration v. thickness (nm) (Fig. 5), and while Grant does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the first passivation layer is less than a thickness of the intermediate passivation layer, and the thickness of the intermediate passivation layer is less than a thickness of the second passivation layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first, intermediate, and second passivation layers of Grant such that a thickness of the first passivation layer is less than a thickness of the intermediate passivation layer, and the thickness of the intermediate passivation layer is less than a thickness of the second passivation layer, because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, 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).
Regarding claim 12, Grant discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Grant does disclose the atomic concentration profile vs. the thickness (nm) (Fig. 5), Grant does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the first passivation layer is in a range of 1 nm to 10 nm, a thickness of the second passivation layer is in a range of 20 nm to 100 nm, and a thickness of the intermediate passivation layer is in a range of 4 nm to 15 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first passivation layer with a thickness in a range of 1 nm to 10 nm, the second passivation layer with a thickness in a range of 20 nm to 100 nm, and the intermediate passivation layer with a thickness in a range of 4 nm to 15 nm, because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, 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).
Regarding claim 13, Grant discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Grant further discloses the intermediate passivation layer further includes oxygen element (Fig. 5), in the intermediate passivation layer (Fig. 5; the intermediate layer is the layer in the profile of Fig. 5 between the SiO2 layer and the Al2O3 layer), an atomic content of the silicon element (Fig. 5), an atomic content of the metal element (Fig. 5, Al at. %), and an atomic content of the oxygen element (Fig. 5).
While Grant does not explicitly disclose an atomic content of the silicon element is in a range of 2% to 60%, an atomic content of the metal element is in a range of 2% to 50%, and an atomic content of the oxygen element is in a range of 38% to 50%, in the intermediate layer, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium).
Regarding claim 15, Grant discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Grant further discloses wherein in the second passivation layer, an atomic content of metal element is in a range of 45% to 65%, and an atomic content of oxygen element is in a range of 35% to 55% (Grant – Fig. 5 discloses aluminum oxide).
It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant et al. (“Activation of Al2O3 surface passivation of silicon: Separating bulk and surface effects”) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Nemeth et al. (“Effect of the SiO2 interlayer properties with solid-source hydrogenation on passivated contact performance and surface passivation”).
Regarding claim 14, Grant discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Grant does disclose in the first passivation layer, a content of silicon element is 47% and content of oxygen element is 53% (by mass in SiO2); Grant does not explicitly disclose an atomic content of silicon element is in a range of 60 to 98%, and an atomic content of oxygen element is in a range of 2 to 40%.
Nemeth discloses a solar cell (Introduction section) and further discloses Si2O+ in a silicon oxide passivation layer (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include Si2O+, as disclosed by Nemeth, in the silicon oxide passivation layer of Grant, because as evidenced by Nemeth, the inclusion of a silicon oxide tunneling layer in a passivation layer of a solar cell device amounts to the use of a known material 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 silicon oxide tunneling layer in the passivation layer of Grant based on the teaching of Nemeth.
Modified Grant discloses a content of silicon element is 78%, and a content of oxygen element is 22% (Nemeth – Fig. 3 discloses Si2O+).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant et al. (“Activation of Al2O3 surface passivation of silicon: Separating bulk and surface effects”) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ikenaga et al. (US 2013/0233376).
Regarding clam 18, Grant discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Grant does not explicitly disclose a tandem solar cell and the solar cell forms a bottom solar cell of the tandem solar cell, and the tandem solar cell further includes a top solar cell located on the front surface of the bottom solar cell.
Ikenaga discloses a tandem solar cell ([0304]; it is noted that a tandem solar cell is a cell in which a top cell is located on a bottom cell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the solar cell of Grant as the bottom cell in a tandem solar cell, such as the tandem solar cell disclosed by Ikenaga, because the use of the solar cell of Grant as a bottom cell in a tandem solar cell 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 using the solar cell of modified Yuan as a bottom solar cell in a tandem cell.
With regard to the limitations “segmented” and “respective segmentation surface,” the limitations are directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Grant discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Grant does not explicitly disclose at least one solar cell string formed by connecting a plurality of the solar cells, at least one packaging adhesive film configured to cover a surface of the at least one solar cell string; and at least one cover plate configured to cover a surface of the at least one packaging adhesive film away from the at least one solar cell string.
Ikenaga discloses a solar cell string formed by connecting a plurality of solar cells (22 in Fig. 1), a packaging adhesive film configured to cover a surface of the solar cell string (28 in Fig.1; [0276], [0009]), and a cover plate configured to cover a surface of the packaging adhesive film away from the solar cell string (24 in Fig. 1; [0279]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form a solar cell string, as disclosed by Ikenaga, with a plurality of the solar cells disclosed by Grant, because the use of a plurality of solar cells increases the amount of electrical power generated.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US 2022/0059718) in view of Grant et al. (“Activation of Al2O3 surface passivation of silicon: Separating bulk and surface effects”).
Regarding claim 1, Yuan discloses a solar cell ([0045]) comprising: a surface
([0059] L2 discloses an exposed fracture surface), and a passivation stack formed on the surface ([0076],[0077]); wherein the passivation stack includes a first passivation layer ([0076],[0077]) and a second passivation layer formed over the first passivation layer in a first direction away from the surface ([0077] L6); and wherein the first passivation layer includes a silicon oxide material ([0076] L2-3).
While Yuan does disclose the first passivation layer may be any two or more laminated films of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, amorphous silicon, gallium oxide, or silicon oxynitride ([0077] L6-8), and further discloses that in other forms, the first passivation layer may also be other types of passivation layers ([0077] L9-10); Yuan does not explicitly disclose the second passivation layer includes a metal oxide material, and the metal oxide material includes at least one element of aluminum, titanium, zinc, zirconium, or hafnium.
However, Yuan does disclose the first passivation layer includes, but is not limited to, any one or any two or combinations of silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, amorphous silicon, gallium oxide or silicon oxynitride ([0110]). Yuan discloses a passivation structure of silicon oxide/aluminum oxide ([0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first passivation layer of Yuan with a second passivation layer including aluminum oxide, because as evidenced by Yuan, the use of a silicon oxide/aluminum oxide passivation layer amounts to the use of known materials in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the first passivation layer of Yuan with a combination of a layer of silicon oxide and a layer of aluminum oxide based on the teachings of Yuan in paragraphs [0077], [0104], and [0110] as cited above.
Modified Yuan does not explicitly disclose the passivation stack further includes
an intermediate passivation layer, the intermediate passivation layer is formed between the first passivation layer and the second passivation layer, the intermediate passivation layer and the first passivation layer both include a silicon element, and the intermediate passivation layer and the second passivation layer include a same metal element; the intermediate passivation layer has a first surface contacting the first passivation layer and a second surface contacting the second passivation layer, an atomic content of the silicon element at the first surface is higher than an atomic content of the silicon element at the second surface, and an atomic content of the metal element at the first surface is lower than an atomic content of the metal element at the second surface.
Grant discloses a solar cell (abstract L2) comprising: a solar cell including a surface (Fig. 5; bulk silicon surface); and a passivation stack formed on the surface (Si(O), Al, and O in Fig. 5a – f), wherein the passivation stack includes a first passivation layer (SiO2 in Fig. 5i – j) and a second passivation layer formed over the first passivation layer in a first direction away from the surface (Al2O3 in Fig. 5i – j); the passivation stack further includes an intermediate passivation layer, the intermediate passivation layer is formed between the first passivation layer and the second passivation layer, the intermediate passivation layer and the first passivation layer both include a silicon element, and the intermediate passivation layer and the second passivation layer include a same metal element (Fig. 5a - f depict an intermediate layer between the interface oxide layer and the aluminum oxide layer which includes silicon and aluminum); the intermediate passivation layer has a first surface contacting the first passivation layer and a second surface contacting the second passivation layer, an atomic content of the silicon element at the first surface is higher than an atomic content of the silicon element at the second surface (Fig. 5a – f depict the at. % of silicon at a higher value adjacent to the interface oxide layer relative to the at. % of silicon adjacent to the aluminum oxide layer), and an atomic content of the aluminum element at the first surface is lower than an atomic content of the aluminum element at the second surface (Fig. 5a – f depict the at % of aluminum at a higher value adjacent to the aluminum oxide layer relative to the at. % of aluminum adjacent to the interface oxide layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the passivation stack of modified Yuan such that the passivation stack includes an intermediate layer, as disclosed by Grant, because as evidenced by Grant, the formation of a passivation stack including a layer of silicon oxide, a layer of aluminum oxide, and an intermediate layer, amounts to the use of known components/materials in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the silicon oxide/aluminum oxide passivation stack of modified Yuan such that the passivation stack includes an intermediate layer, based on the teaching of Grant.
Grant further discloses that the method achieves maximum surface passivation (first line of left column on page 9).
With regard to the limitations “segmented” and “segmentation surface,” the
limitations are directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein the segmented solar cell is an N-cut solar cell formed by segmenting an original solar cell, N is a positive integer greater than or equal to 2,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It is noted that with regard to the limitations “segmented,” “segmenting,” and “segmented solar cell,” the limitations are directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yuan further discloses the solar cell includes: a base (Yuan - [0079], cell wafer), the base having a first main surface facing a second direction and a second main surface opposite to the first main surface (Yuan - 20 and 30 in Fig. 5; [0079]), wherein the surface is between the first main surface and the second main surface (Yuan - 10 in relation to 20 and 30 in Fig. 5; [0079]); a side surface between the first main surface and the second main surface (Yuan - 40 in relation to 20 and 30 in Fig. 5; [0079]); a first main passivation film formed on the first main surface (Yuan - [0079] L11-13); a second main passivation film formed on the second main surface (Yuan - [0079] L11-13); and a side passivation film formed on the side surface (Yuan - 401 in Fig. 5; [0120]), the side passivation film including a same material that is included in one of the first main passivation film or the second main passivation film (Yuan - [0103],[0120]).
With regard to the limitations “segmented solar cell,” “respective segmentation surface,” and “non-segmented side surface,” the limitations are directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yuan further discloses the passivation stack is further formed on a part of a surface of the first main passivation film away from the first main surface (Yuan - [0079] L26-30).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Yuan does disclose the first passivation layer 101 just partially covers the passivation layer on the second surface and the third surface (Yuan - [0079] L26-30), modified Yuan does not explicitly disclose an area ratio of the part of the surface of the first main passivation film provided with the passivation stack to the surface of the first main passivation film is less than or equal to 5%; and/or an area ratio of the part of the surface of the second main passivation film provided with the passivation stack to the surface of the second main passivation film is less than or equal to 5%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the passivation stack which just partially covers the surface of the first main passivation film of modified Yuan such that an area ratio of the part of the surface of the first main passivation film provided with the passivation stack to the surface of the first main passivation film is less than or equal to 5%, because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, 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).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yuan further discloses a material of the intermediate passivation layer includes an oxide of the silicon element and an oxide of the metal element (Grant - Fig. 5 depicts an intermediate layer between the interface oxide layer and the aluminum oxide layer which includes silicon oxide and aluminum oxide).
Regarding claim 10, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yuan further discloses a concentration profile in which the silicon element decreases along a direction from first to second passivation layers (Grant - Fig. 5), and in which the aluminum element increases in a direction from first to second passivation layers (Grant - Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yuan depicts an atomic concentration v. thickness (nm) (Grant - Fig. 5), and while modified Yuan does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the first passivation layer is less than a thickness of the intermediate passivation layer, and the thickness of the intermediate passivation layer is less than a thickness of the second passivation layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first, intermediate, and second passivation layers of modified Yuan such that a thickness of the first passivation layer is less than a thickness of the intermediate passivation layer, and the thickness of the intermediate passivation layer is less than a thickness of the second passivation layer, because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, 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).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Yuan does disclose the atomic concentration profile vs. the thickness (nm) (Grant – Fig. 5), modified Yuan does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the first passivation layer is in a range of 1 nm to 10 nm, a thickness of the second passivation layer is in a range of 20 nm to 100 nm, and a thickness of the intermediate passivation layer is in a range of 4 nm to 15 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first passivation layer with a thickness in a range of 1 nm to 10 nm, the second passivation layer with a thickness in a range of 20 nm to 100 nm, and the intermediate passivation layer with a thickness in a range of 4 nm to 15 nm, because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, 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).
Regarding claim 13, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yuan further discloses the intermediate passivation layer further includes oxygen element (Grant – Fig. 5), in the intermediate passivation layer (Grant – Fig. 5; the intermediate layer is the layer in the profile of Fig. 5 between the SiO2 layer and the Al2O3 layer), an atomic content of the silicon element (Grant – Fig. 5), an atomic content of the metal element (Grant – Fig. 5, Al at. %), and an atomic content of the oxygen element (Grant – Fig. 5).
While modified Yuan does not explicitly disclose an atomic content of the silicon element is in a range of 2% to 60%, an atomic content of the metal element is in a range of 2% to 50%, and an atomic content of the oxygen element is in a range of 38% to 50%, in the intermediate layer, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium).
Regarding claim 15, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yuan further discloses wherein in the second passivation layer, an atomic content of metal element is in a range of 45% to 65%, and an atomic content of oxygen element is in a range of 35% to 55% (Yuan - [0077], [0104], [0110] disclose aluminum oxide; Grant – Fig. 5).
It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium).
Regarding claim 16, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yuan further discloses the first passivation layer includes a third surface away from the second passivation layer, and a fourth surface facing to the second passivation layer (Grant - SiO2 in Fig. 5i – j); wherein an atomic content of silicon element at the third surface is higher than an atomic content of the silicon element at the fourth surface (Grant – Fig. 5), and an atomic content of oxygen element at the third surface is lower than an atomic content of the oxygen element at the fourth surface (Grant – Fig. 5a – f; O at. % profile).
Regarding claim 17, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yuan further discloses the second passivation layer includes a fifth surface away from the first passivation layer, and a sixth surface facing to the first passivation layer (Grant - Al2O3 in Fig. 5i – j); and wherein an atomic content of oxygen element at the sixth surface is higher than an atomic content of the oxygen element at the fifth surface (Grant – Figures 5a and 5b depict atomic content of oxygen higher at the surface facing the silicon oxide layer), and an atomic content of metal element at the sixth surface is lower than an atomic content of the metal element at the fifth surface (Grant – Figures 5a – 5f show a lower atomic content of Al on a surface facing the silicon oxide layer).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US 2022/0059718) in view of Grant et al. (“Activation of Al2O3 surface passivation of silicon: Separating bulk and surface effects”) as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Mueller et al. (US 2017/0005212).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Modified Yuan does not explicitly disclose an edge solder pad, wherein the edge
solder pad is formed at an edge of the first main surface, and a spacing is formed between the passivation stack formed on the surface of the first main passivation film and the edge solder pad; and/or wherein the edge solder pad is formed at an edge of the second main surface, and a spacing is formed between the passivation stack formed on the surface of the second main passivation film and the edge solder pad.
Mueller discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses an edge solder pad, wherein the edge solder pad is formed at an edge of a second main surface (146 in Fig. 1B; [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a solder pad, as disclosed by Mueller, at an edge of the second main surface of the solar cell of modified Yuan, because as taught by Mueller, soldering of a solar cell with other components (e.g., with other solar cells) is enabled ([0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a spacing between the passivation stack formed on the surface of the second main passivation film of modified Yuan and the edge solder pad because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US 2022/0059718) in view of Grant et al. (“Activation of Al2O3 surface passivation of silicon: Separating bulk and surface effects”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nemeth et al. (“Effect of the SiO2 interlayer properties with solid-source hydrogenation on passivated contact performance and surface passivation”).
Regarding claim 14, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Yuan does disclose in the first passivation layer, a content of silicon element is 47% and content of oxygen element is 53% (by mass in SiO2); modified Yuan does not explicitly disclose an atomic content of silicon element is in a range of 60 to 98%, and an atomic content of oxygen element is in a range of 2 to 40%.
Nemeth discloses a solar cell (Introduction section) and further discloses Si2O+ in a silicon oxide passivation layer (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include Si2O+, as disclosed by Nemeth, in the silicon oxide passivation layer of modified Yuan, because as evidenced by Nemeth, the inclusion of a silicon oxide tunneling layer in a passivation layer of a solar cell device amounts to the use of a known material 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 silicon oxide tunneling layer in the passivation layer of modified Yuan based on the teaching of Nemeth.
Modified Yuan discloses a content of silicon element is 78%, and a content of oxygen element is 22% (Nemeth – Fig. 3 discloses Si2O+).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US 2022/0059718) in view of Grant et al. (“Activation of Al2O3 surface passivation of silicon: Separating bulk and surface effects”) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ikenaga et al. (US 2013/0233376).
Regarding clam 18, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
While modified Yuan does disclose the solar cell includes a front surface and a back surface opposite to the front surface (Yuan – 20 and 30 in Fig. 5), the surface connects the front surface and the back surface (Yuan – 10 in relation to 20 and 30 in Fig. 5); modified Yuan does not explicitly disclose a tandem solar cell and the solar cell forms a bottom solar cell of the tandem solar cell, and the tandem solar cell further includes a top solar cell located on the front surface of the bottom solar cell.
Ikenaga discloses a tandem solar cell ([0304]; it is noted that a tandem solar cell is a cell in which a top cell is located on a bottom cell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the solar cell of modified Yuan as the bottom cell in a tandem solar cell, such as the tandem solar cell disclosed by Ikenaga, because the use of the solar cell of modified Yuan as a bottom cell in a tandem solar cell 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 using the solar cell of modified Yuan as a bottom solar cell in a tandem cell.
With regard to the limitations “segmented” and “respective segmentation surface,” the limitations are directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Yuan does not explicitly disclose at least one solar cell string formed by connecting a plurality of the solar cells, at least one packaging adhesive film configured to cover a surface of the at least one solar cell string; and at least one cover plate configured to cover a surface of the at least one packaging adhesive film away from the at least one solar cell string.
Ikenaga discloses a solar cell string formed by connecting a plurality of solar cells (22 in Fig. 1), a packaging adhesive film configured to cover a surface of the solar cell string (28 in Fig.1; [0276], [0009]), and a cover plate configured to cover a surface of the packaging adhesive film away from the solar cell string (24 in Fig. 1; [0279]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form a solar cell string, as disclosed by Ikenaga, with a plurality of the solar cells disclosed by modified Yuan, because the use of a plurality of solar cells increases the amount of electrical power generated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Grant does not disclose or suggest an intermediate passivation layer having a first surface contacting the first passivation layer and a second surface contacting the second passivation with the recited atomic-content relationships. In response to Applicant’s argument, as set forth above in this office action, Grant discloses the passivation stack includes an intermediate passivation layer, the intermediate passivation layer is formed between the first passivation layer and the second passivation layer, the intermediate passivation layer and the first passivation layer both include a silicon element, and the intermediate passivation layer and the second passivation layer include a same metal element (Fig. 5a - f depict an intermediate layer between the interface oxide layer and the aluminum oxide layer which includes silicon and aluminum); the intermediate passivation layer has a first surface contacting the first passivation layer and a second surface contacting the second passivation layer, an atomic content of the silicon element at the first surface is higher than an atomic content of the silicon element at the second surface (Fig. 5a – f depict the at. % of silicon at a higher value adjacent to the interface oxide layer relative to the at. % of silicon adjacent to the aluminum oxide layer), and an atomic content of the aluminum element at the first surface is lower than an atomic content of the aluminum element at the second surface (Fig. 5a – f depict the at % of aluminum at a higher value adjacent to the aluminum oxide layer relative to the at. % of aluminum adjacent to the interface oxide layer).
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8, and 10-20 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.
It is noted that the claim amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the previous office action.
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
