DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is the first action on the merits for application 19/093,241, filed 3/27/25, claiming priority to Chinese document 202410424836.8, filed 4/9/2024.
Claims 1-17 are pending and have been considered on the merits herein.
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 9 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.
Claim 9 calculates a given value based on the relationship between “an area value of the bottom surface of the rectangular portion to the first value is within a range from 10% to 90%”, but it is unclear what the bottom surface area is, would be determined, or which rectangular portion it is reflective of. The specification teaches the calculation to be indicative of overlap (see paragraph [0074]). The Applicant is encouraged to elaborate on the “bottom surface” of the claim or amend the claim consistent with the comparison overlap disclosed in the specification as filed.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DU et al (CN113327999B, supplied by the Applicant, wherein citations are provided to the English machine translation included herein).
Regarding claim 1, DU et al teaches a segmented solar cell (title), comprising:
a substrate (001); and
a cutting surface (002-007) formed by cutting a solar cell (laser etching the groove and etching for texturing, bottom of page 8),
the cutting surface exposing a cross section of the substrate (see figures 1, 3, 5, 7);
wherein at least part of the cutting surface comprises a first texture structure (see figure 4), the first texture structure comprises polygonal portions (a triangular or pyramidal peak), and at least one polygonal portion of the polygonal portions partially overlaps with at least one neighboring polygonal portion of the polygonal portions (Figures 4 and 6 shows the cross section of the triangular peaks at the edge of the figure intersect or overlap with others (and at other points in the texture), wherein pyramid edges intersects another diagonal side of the neighboring pyramid edge. By not forming individual, distinct and complete triangular shapes, overlap is shown. See figure 4 reproduced below annotated with areas showing the overlap circled.).
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
537
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, 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 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 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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DU et al.
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).
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DU et al, in view of LEE et al (US PG PUB 20210126147A1).
Regarding claim 4, DU et al teaches the use of pyramidal shaped polygonal texturing, as in figures 2-6, 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 DU et al, as shown in LEE et al, so as to increase light efficiency.
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 DU et al, in view of YU et al (US PG PUB 2023/0088548).
Regarding claim 9, DU et al teaches 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, a size of the long side is defined as a first size, a size of the wide side is defined as a second size, a product of the first size and the second size is defined as a first value, and for any of the rectangular portions, a ratio of an area value of the bottom surface of the rectangular portion to the first value is within a range from 10% to 90%.
YU et al teaches texturizing a silicon substrate in the abstract, just as in 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 DU et al, 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 DU et al teaches and renders obvious “a product of the first size and the second size is defined as a first value, and for any of the rectangular portions, a ratio of an area value of the bottom surface of the rectangular portion to the first value is within a range from 10% to 90%”.
Regarding claim 11, DU et al teaches 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 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 DU et al, 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 DU et al, in view ZHANG et al (CN117059681A, wherein citations are made to the English machine translation provided herein).
Regarding claim 10, DU et al teaches protrusions on the surface, but 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 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 DU et al, 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 DU et al, in view of KALIO et al (US PG PUB 2021/0288203).
Regarding claim 12, DU et al teaches a segmented solar cell, as in claim 1, but fails to expressly show the solar cell within a module comprising 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 DU et al, as shown in figure 1. 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 DU et al, 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 DU et al, in view of KALIO et al and LEE et al.
Regarding claim 15, DU et al teaches the use of pyramidal shaped polygonal texturing, as in figures 2-6, but modified DU et al 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 DU et al, 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG PUB 2013/0153025 also reads on texturization on the edge surface (or cutting surface) of a silicon wafer. This is an applicable rejection for claim 1 with discussion of overlapping texturization like US PG PUB 20150228816.
US PG PUB 20170062649 also teaches overlapping texturization features.
US PG PUB 2014/0170799 is directed to texturization shapes as in the art.
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 4/2/2026