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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 04/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 of claim 7 appears to contain a typographical error with regard to the word “the” prior to the recitation of “first passivation.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, lines 2 and 3 of claim 2 recite “the segmented solar cell includes at least one segmentation surface,” while line 2 of claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites “a segmented solar cell including a segmentation surface,” and while the segmented solar cell of claim 2 refers to the segmented solar cell of claim 1, the relationship between the at least one segmentation surface of claim 2 and the segmentation surface of claim 1 is unclear. The recitation of “at least one segmentation surface” in line 3 of claim 2 is not clear as to whether the previously recited “a segmentation surface” in line 2 of claim 1 is one of the at least one segmentation surface of claim 2, or whether the segmentation surface of claim 1 is in addition to the at least one segmentation surface of claim 2.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, lines 4 and 5 of claim 9 recite “the first surface” and lines 5 and 6 recite “the second surface,” however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. While lines 2 and 3 recite first surfaces and second surfaces, the respective surface to which the limitations “the first surface” and “the second surface” refer is unclear. Claim 10 is rejected due to its dependence on claim 9.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, claims 13, 14, and 15 require ranges of content %, however, the claims do not specify whether the percentages are in terms of molar percentages, atomic percentages, etc., and further do not specify whether the percentages are by weight, volume, etc.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martel et al. (“Addressing separation and edge passivation challenges for high efficiency shingle heterojunction solar cells”).
Regarding claim 1, Martel discloses a solar cell (abstract) comprising: a surface (bulk Si in Fig. 11b), and a passivation stack formed on the surface (Fig. 11b depicts AlOx and SixAlxOx on bulk Si surface); wherein the passivation stack includes a first passivation layer (SixAlxOx in Fig. 11b) and a second passivation layer formed over the first passivation layer in a first direction away from the surface (AlOx on SixAlxOx in relation to the bulk Si surface in Fig. 11b); and wherein the first passivation layer includes a silicon oxide material (SixAlxOx in Fig. 11b), and the second passivation layer includes aluminum oxide (AlOx in Fig. 11b).
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, Martel discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Martel does disclose the solar cell includes the passivation stack formed on the surface (Fig. 11b depicts AlOx and SixAlxOx on bulk Si surface), 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 segmented solar cell includes at least one segmentation surface,” 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).
With regard to the limitations “segmented,” “segmenting,” “segmented solar cell,” 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).
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 1-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US 2022/0059718).
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.
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.
While modified Yuan does disclose the solar cell includes the passivation stack formed on the surface (as set forth in modified Yuan above ([0077], [0104], and [0110])), 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 segmented solar cell includes at least one segmentation surface,” 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).
With regard to the limitations “segmented,” “segmenting,” “segmented solar cell,” 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 3, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yuan further discloses the solar cell includes: a base ([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 (20 and 30 in Fig. 5; [0079]), wherein the surface is between the first main surface and the second main surface (10 in relation to 20 and 30 in Fig. 5; [0079]); a side surface between the first main surface and the second main surface (40 in relation to 20 and 30 in Fig. 5; [0079]); a first main passivation film formed on the first main surface ([0079] L11-13); a second main passivation film formed on the second main surface ([0079] L11-13); and a side passivation film formed on the side surface (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 ([0103],[0120]).
With regard to the limitations “segmented solar cell,” “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 ([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 ([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 15, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yuan further discloses in the second passivation layer, a content of metal element is 53% and a content of oxygen element is 47% (Yuan - [0077], [0104], [0110] disclose aluminum oxide).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US 2022/0059718) 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.
Claims 7-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US 2022/0059718) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Boescke (DE 102010040110 A1 – see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Modified Yuan does not explicitly disclose 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.
Boescke discloses a solar cell ([0001]) and further discloses a passivation stack including an intermediate layer formed between first and second passivation layers ([0023] - AlSiO layer 4 in relation to 5 and 6 in Fig. 2C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include an AlSiO intermediate passivation layer, as disclosed by Boescke, between the first and second passivation layers of modified Yuan, because as evidenced by Boescke, the use of an AlSiO intermediate layer between first and second passivation layers of a multi-film passivation layer (Yuan – [0077]) 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 an AlSiO intermediate layer between the first and second passivation layers of modified Yuan based on the teaching of Boescke.
Modified Yuan discloses the intermediate passivation layer (Boescke – [0023] discloses an AlSiO intermediate layer) and the first passivation layer both include a silicon element (Yuan - [0076] L2-3), and the intermediate passivation layer and the second passivation layer include a same metal element (Yuan – [0077], [0104], and [0110]).
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 (Boescke - [0023] discloses an AlSiO intermediate layer).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above. Modified Yuan further discloses a content of the silicon element at the first surface (content of silicon element at the first surface of the silicon oxide layer) is higher than a content of the silicon element at the second surface (content of silicon element at the second surface of the aluminum oxide layer), and a content of the metal element at the first surface (content of aluminum at the first surface of the silicon oxide layer) is lower than a content of the metal element at the second surface (content of aluminum at the second surface of the aluminum oxide layer).
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 (Boescke - [0023] discloses an AlSiO intermediate layer), in the intermediate passivation layer, a content of SiO2 is 1 to 50% ([0011]) and the remainder of the content in the intermediate passivation layer is Al2O3 ([0011]). It is noted that for a composition of 10% SiO2 and 90% Al2O3, 1 mole of AlSiO contains 0.1 x (6.02 x 1023 molecules of SiO2) and 0.9 x (6.02 x 1023 molecules of Al2O3) resulting in 0.6 x 1023 molecules SiO2 and 5.4 x 1023 molecules of Al2O3, corresponding to 0.6 x 1023 Si atoms, 10.8 x 1023 atoms of Al, and 1.2 x 1023 + 16.2 x 1023 atoms O (17.4 x 1023 atoms O). This corresponds to an atom content ratio of 2.1% Si, 37.5% Al, and 60.4% O.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US 2022/0059718) in view of Boescke (DE 102010040110 A1 – see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Grant et al. (“Activation of Al2O3 surface passivation of silicon: Separating bulk and surface effects").
Regarding claim 10, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Modified Yuan does not explicitly disclose wherein along a direction directing from the first passivation layer toward the second passivation layer, the content of the silicon element in the intermediate passivation layer substantially represents a decreasing profile, and the content of the metal element in the intermediate passivation layer substantially represents an increasing profile.
Grant discloses a solar cell (abstract) and 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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the intermediate passivation layer of modified Yuan with the concentration profile disclosed by Grant, because as evidenced by Grant, the concentration profile of the intermediate passivation layer amounts to a known concentration profile in a silicon solar cell with an aluminum oxide passivation layer and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the intermediate passivation layer of modified Yuan with the concentration profile claimed based on the teaching of Grant.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US 2022/0059718) in view of Boescke (DE 102010040110 A1 – see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN107068774A – see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Modified Yuan does not explicitly disclose 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.
Chen discloses a solar cell ([0002]) and further discloses a thickness of a first passivation layer ([0033] – 2 to 10 nm) is less than a thickness of an intermediate passivation layer ([0035] – 5 to 20 nm), and the thickness of the intermediate passivation layer is less than a thickness of a second passivation layer ([0036] – 15 to 35 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, the intermediate passivation layer, and the second passivation layer 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, as disclosed by Chen, because as evidenced by Chen, the thickness relationship claimed between passivation layers of a multilayer passivation structure of a solar cell is known in the art, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the passivation layers of modified Yuan with the thickness relationship claimed based on the teaching of Chen.
Additionally, 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. Modified Yuan further discloses a thickness of the first passivation layer is 2 to 10 nm (Chen – [0033]), a thickness of the second passivation layer is 15 to 35 nm (Chen - [0036]), and a thickness of the intermediate passivation layer is 5 to 20 nm (Chen – [0035]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US 2022/0059718) 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, 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 a content of silicon element is in a range of 60 to 98%, and a 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+).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US 2022/0059718) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of de Almeida et al. (“Dynamics of thermal growth of silicon oxide films on Si”).
Regarding claim 16, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Modified Yuan does not explicitly disclose the first passivation layer includes a third surface away from the second passivation layer, and a first surface facing to the second passivation layer, wherein a content of silicon element at the third surface is higher than a content of the silicon element at the first surface, and a content of oxygen element at the third surface is lower than a content of the oxygen element at the first surface.
De Almeida discloses a growth process for silicon oxide on a silicon surface (abstract) and further discloses a content of oxygen at the third surface is lower than a content of oxygen at the first surface (Fig. 1). It is noted that the y-axis of Fig. 1 depicts relative concentration, therefore, Fig. 1 discloses a content of silicon at the third surface is higher than a content of silicon at the first surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the silicon oxide passivation layer of modified Yuan in the manner disclosed by De Almeida, because as evidenced by De Almeida, a silicon oxide layer on a silicon surface with a concentration profile in which a content of oxygen at the third surface is lower than a content of oxygen at the first surface, and a content of silicon at the third surface is higher than a content of silicon at the first surface, amounts to a known concentration profile for a silicon oxide layer on a silicon surface, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the silicon oxide layer of modified Yuan with the claimed concentration profile based on the teaching of De Almeida.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US 2022/0059718) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Grant et al. (“Activation of Al2O3 surface passivation of silicon: Separating bulk and surface effects").
Regarding claim 17, modified Yuan discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
Modified Yuan does not explicitly disclose the second passivation layer includes a fourth surface away from the first passivation layer, and a second surface facing to the first passivation layer; and wherein a content of oxygen element at the second surface is higher than a content of the oxygen element at the fourth surface, and a content of metal element at the second surface is lower than a content of the metal element at the fourth surface.
Grant discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a content of oxygen element at the second surface is higher than a content of the oxygen element at the fourth surface (Fig. 5) and a content of metal element at the second surface is lower than a content of the metal element at the fourth surface (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the second passivation layer of modified Yuan with the concentration profile disclosed by Grant, because as evidenced by Grant, the concentration profile of the Al2O3 layer amounts to a known concentration profile for an aluminum oxide passivation layer in a silicon solar cell and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the aluminum oxide passivation layer of modified Yuan with the concentration profile claimed based on the teaching of Grant.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US 2022/0059718) 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 “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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights