DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment of July 7, 2026 is considered herein.
Claims 1, 9, and 12 have been amended.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
A comma is needed between the limitations defining the wide side and the at least part of the respective portion, reading as “the wide side has a second dimension, at least part of the respective rectangular portion” to make clear these are two different limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KROKOSZINSKI (US PG PUB 2011/0253211), in view of DU et al (CN 113327999B, wherein citations are to the translation document provided with the previous action).
Regarding claim 1, KROKOSZINSKI teaches a segmented solar cell figure 6 shows the separation of the solar cell into different segments, reading on a segmented solar cell), comprising:
a substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (figure 1);
a passivation layer formed over the first surface (figure 11, FSP passivation); and
at least one electrode (figure 13, Ag-containing paste 2) formed over the passivation layer (see figure 13), the at least one electrode passing through a thickness of the passivation layer to contact the substrate at the first surface (paragraph [0041]);
wherein the substrate has a cutting surface formed by cutting a solar cell, the cutting surface connecting the first surface and the second surface (figures 6 and 7, paragraphs [0034] and [0035]);
wherein at least part of the cutting surface comprises a first texture structure (triangular texture in figure 7), the first texture structure comprises polygonal portions (triangular).
KROKOSZINSKI teaches the use of alkaline etching (KOH) to form the textured structure in paragraph [0035] and shows the contact between the interior texture and an electrode (figure 12), but is silent to the “at least one polygonal portion of the polygonal portions partially overlaps with at least one neighboring polygonal portion of the polygonal portions”.
DU et al teaches a solar cell with alkaline (KOH) texturing, just as in KROKOSZINSKI, in figure 4 and step S3. Figure 4 shows the resulting structure of the texturization treatment in actuality, beyond the 2D drawing on KROKOSZINSKI, featuring partial overlapping of neighboring portions.
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
537
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DU et al further teaches the use of the texturing to provide greater surface area contact between the wafer and subsequent layers formed thereon, increasing bonding and improving solar cell performance.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to form the overlapping texture of DU et al, during the same texturing process applied to the device of KROKOSZINSKI so as to increase bonding of subsequent layers and improve solar cell performance. This will render the claimed “at least one polygonal portion of the polygonal portions partially overlaps with at least one neighboring polygonal portion of the polygonal portions”.
Regarding claim 2, KROKOSZINSKI teaches the polygonal portions are recessed towards an interior of the segmented solar cell (figure 7).
Regarding claim 3, DU et al teaches depth of at least some of the polygonal portions recessed towards the interior of the segmented solar cell ranges from 10 nm to 500 nm (2nd paragraph, Contents of the invention section, page 3 teaches height of 0.1-10 micron, 100-10000 nm, overlapping and rendering obvious the claimed sizing).
Regarding claim 8, DU et al teaches any of the polygonal portions (peaks of figures 4 and 6) is adjacent to at least one neighboring polygonal portion of the polygonal portions (see figures 4 and 6), and any of the polygonal portions partially overlaps with the at least one neighboring polygonal portion of the polygonal portions (see annotated figure of claim 1).
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRONKOSZINSKI, in view of DU et al and LEE et al (US PG PUB 20210126147A1).
Regarding claim 4, KRONKOSZINSKI and DU et al teach the use of pyramidal shaped polygonal texturing, as in figure 7 of KRONKOSZINSKI and figures 2-6 of DU et al, but fails to teach a bottom surface of at least one of the polygonal portions is a planar surface.
LEE et al teaches the use of texturing the substrate using overlapping pyramidal shaping in figure 4, just as in DU et al. LEE et al further teaches the use of flat valleys (planar, flat bottom surfaces) between the pyramids (see paragraph [0086]) for the purpose of increased light efficiency (paragraph [0087]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize flat bottom surfaces between the pyramidal shaping of modified KRONKOSZINSKI, as shown in LEE et al, so as to increase light efficiency. The same texturization is applied to the entirety of KRONKOSZINSKI, rendering its application here and on the cutting surface thereof, applicable.
Regarding claim 5, LEE et al teaches an angle formed between the bottom surface of at least one of the polygonal portions and the cutting surface is less than 30 degrees (paragraph [0021] teaches the angle to be less than 55 degrees, reading on the instant range).
Regarding claim 6, DU et al shows a height difference is formed between the bottom surfaces of two polygonal portions that overlap with each other (see annotation of figure 4 above, wherein the peaks have different heights, clearly shown in the rightmost annotation of figure 4 above).
Regarding claim 7, LEE et al teaches, along the direction perpendicular to the cutting surface, the height difference formed between the bottom surfaces of the two polygonal portions that overlap with each other is within a range from 10 nm to 500 nm (Figure 5c details two protrusions (polygonal portions), also shown in the center of figure 5a, wherein when measured relative to each other are about 100nm (.1 micron according to the scale at the bottom) different in height, fulfilling the claim as written. Figure 6 also shows two overlapping peaks reading on the claimed height difference as annotated in a rectangle below, wherein the height difference is just less than .5 micron according to the scale at the bottom).
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
492
623
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRONKOSZINSKI, in view of DU et al and YU et al (US PG PUB 2023/0088548).
Regarding claim 9, KROKOSZINSKI and DU et al teach the use of polygonal portions as discussed above, but fails to teach wherein the polygonal portions are implemented as rectangular portions, a respective rectangular portion of the rectangular portions includes a long side and a wide side, the long side has a first dimension, the wide side has a second dimension, at least part of the respective rectangular portion does not overlap with any other rectangular portion of the rectangular portions, and an area of the part of the respective rectangular portion is 10% to 90% of a product of the first dimension and the second dimension.
YU et al teaches texturizing a silicon substrate in the abstract, just as in KRONKOSZINSKI and DU et al. YU et al further teaches the texture including substructures being non-pyramid shaped to include square shapes (paragraph [0057], interpreted to be a species of rectangle), with long and wide sides, shown in figures 3, 4a/b and 5. Figure 3 shows varying levels of overlap between rectangular shape textures including near complete overlap (indicated in the annotated figure below with a dashed-square outline), minimal overlap (indicated in the annotated figure below with a dashed-circular outline) and varying levels in between. Paragraph [0004] details the use of texturized structure as in YU et al improved conversion efficiency.
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image3.png
345
369
media_image3.png
Greyscale
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the rectangular shaped texturization of at least a portion of the polygonal shaped texturization of modified KRONKOSZINSKI, as shown in YU et al, so as to improve conversion efficiency. Moreover, the substitution of one known effective texturization on the solar cell surface for increased conversion for another is predictable and well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. Paragraph [0075] of the instant specification details the ratio indicative of overlap of neighboring portions. The disclosure of YU et al renders obvious the selection of overlap between neighboring rectangular components between nearly complete overlap to nearly no overlap, per the range shown in the figure above. For this reason, modified KRONKOSZINSKI teaches and renders obvious “at least part of the respective rectangular portion does not overlap with any other rectangular portion of the rectangular portions, and an area of the part of the respective rectangular portion is 10% to 90% of a product of the first dimension and the second dimension.”
Regarding claim 11, KRONKOSZINSKI and DU et al teach the use of polygonal portions as discussed above, but fails to teach wherein the polygonal portions are implemented as rectangular portions, the rectangular portions each comprise a long side and a wide side; and along an extension direction of the long side, a size of the long side is within a range from 3 micron to 15 micron, and/or along an extension direction of the wide side, a size of the wide side is within a range from 3 micron to 15 micron.
YU et al teaches texturizing a silicon substrate in the abstract, just as in KRONKOSZINSKI and DU et al. YU et al further teaches the texture including substructures being non-pyramid shaped to include square shapes (paragraph [0057], interpreted to be a species of rectangle), with long and wide sides, shown in figures 3, 4a/b and 5. Consistent with figure 5, YU et al teaches a dimension of the structure to be between 2 micron and 45 micron (paragraph [0055]), reading on the long side and/or wide side of the rectangular components and rendering obvious the claimed range including the specific examples in the citation. Paragraph [0004] details the use of texturized structure as in YU et al improved conversion efficiency.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the rectangular shaped texturization of at least a portion of the polygonal shaped texturization of modified KRONKOSZINSKI, as shown in YU et al, so as to improve conversion efficiency. Moreover, the substitution of one known effective texturization (rectangular and sized components of YU et al) on the solar cell surface for increased conversion for another (triangular components of DU et al) is predictable and well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRONKOSZINSKI, in view of DU et al and ZHANG et al (CN117059681A, wherein citations are made to the English machine translation provided herein).
Regarding claim 10, KRONKOSZINSKI and DU et al teach protrusions on the surface, but modified KRONKOSZINSKI fails to teach a density of the polygonal portions located at the cutting surface is within a range from 103 to 105/mm2.
ZHANG et al teaches overlapping groove texturization for improved conversion efficiency (Background technology), just as in KRONKOSZINSKI and DU et al. ZHANG et al further teaches a distribution density of 1000-50000 protrusions or grooves/mm2, rendering obvious the claimed range via overlapping values.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the protrusions of modified KRONKOSZINSKI, in the frequency of ZHANG et al, so as to realize the desired improved conversion efficiency.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRONKOSZINSKI, in view of DU et al and KALIO et al (US PG PUB 2021/0288203).
Regarding claim 12, KROKOSZINSKI teaches a segmented solar cell figure 6 shows the separation of the solar cell into different segments, reading on a segmented solar cell), comprising:
a substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface (figure 1);
a passivation layer formed over the first surface (figure 11, FSP passivation); and
at least one electrode (figure 13, Ag-containing paste 2) formed over the passivation layer (see figure 13), the at least one electrode passing through a thickness of the passivation layer to contact the substrate at the first surface (paragraph [0041]);
wherein the substrate has a cutting surface formed by cutting a solar cell, the cutting surface connecting the first surface and the second surface (figures 6 and 7, paragraphs [0034] and [0035]);
wherein at least part of the cutting surface comprises a first texture structure (triangular texture in figure 7), the first texture structure comprises polygonal portions (triangular).
KROKOSZINSKI teaches the use of alkaline etching (KOH) to form the textured structure in paragraph [0035] and shows the contact between the interior texture and an electrode (figure 12), but is silent to the “at least one polygonal portion of the polygonal portions partially overlaps with at least one neighboring polygonal portion of the polygonal portions”. Moreover, KRONKOSZINSKI fails to teach an encapsulation adhesive film configured to cover a surface of the solar cell string; and a cover plate configured to cover a surface of the encapsulation adhesive film away from the solar cell string..
DU et al teaches a solar cell with alkaline (KOH) texturing, just as in KROKOSZINSKI, in figure 4 and step S3. Figure 4 shows the resulting structure of the texturization treatment in actuality, beyond the 2D drawing on KROKOSZINSKI, featuring partial overlapping of neighboring portions.
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
537
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DU et al further teaches the use of the texturing to provide greater surface area contact between the wafer and subsequent layers formed thereon, increasing bonding and improving solar cell performance.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to form the overlapping texture of DU et al, during the same texturing process applied to the device of KROKOSZINSKI so as to increase bonding of subsequent layers and improve solar cell performance. This will render the claimed “at least one polygonal portion of the polygonal portions partially overlaps with at least one neighboring polygonal portion of the polygonal portions”.
Modified KRONKOSZINSKI fails to teach an encapsulation adhesive film configured to cover a surface of the solar cell string; and a cover plate configured to cover a surface of the encapsulation adhesive film away from the solar cell string..
KALIO et al teaches a segmented solar cell (12), as in KRONKOSZINSKI and DU et al, as shown in figure 1 of DU et al and figure 13 of KRONKOSZINSKI. KALIO et al further teaches the solar cells fabricated in a string (12, to increase power generation by multiple connected components), covered by an encapsulant (9) and cover plate (10) to protect against environmental influences as discussed in paragraph [0079].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the segmented cell of modified KRONKOSZINSKI, in a plurality and covered in an encapsulant and cover plate to increase power generation and protect the cells from environmental influences.
Regarding claim 13, DU et al teaches the polygonal portions are recessed towards an interior of the segmented solar cell (see figures 3-6, recessed portions are shown as surfaces 003-007).
Regarding claim 14, DU et al teaches depth of at least some of the polygonal portions recessed towards the interior of the segmented solar cell ranges from 10 nm to 500 nm (2nd paragraph, Contents of the invention section, page 3 teaches height of 0.1-10 micron, 100-10000 nm, overlapping and rendering obvious the claimed sizing).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRONKOSZINSKI, in view of DU et al, KALIO et al and LEE et al.
Regarding claim 15, KRONKOSZINSKI and DU et al teaches the use of pyramidal shaped polygonal texturing, as in figure 7 of KRONKOSZINSKI and figures 2-6 of DU et al, but modified KRONKOSZINSKI fails to teach a bottom surface of at least one of the polygonal portions is a planar surface.
LEE et al teaches the use of texturing the substrate using overlapping pyramidal shaping in figure 4, just as in KRONKOSZINSKI. LEE et al further teaches the use of flat valleys (planar, flat bottom surfaces) between the pyramids (see paragraph [0086]) for the purpose of increased light efficiency (paragraph [0087]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize flat bottom surfaces between the pyramidal shaping of KRONKOSZINSKI, as shown in LEE et al, so as to increase light efficiency.
Regarding claim 16, LEE et al teaches an angle formed between the bottom surface of at least one of the polygonal portions and the cutting surface is less than 30 degrees (paragraph [0021] teaches the angle to be less than 55 degrees, reading on the instant range).
Regarding claim 17, DU et al shows a height difference is formed between the bottom surfaces of two polygonal portions that overlap with each other (see annotation of figure 4 above, wherein the peaks have different heights, clearly shown in the rightmost annotation of figure 4 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1and its dependents have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST 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.
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 10/1/2026
