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 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.
Claims 8 and 16-17 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.
Regarding Claim 8, Applicant recites, “comprises at least an alumina layer”. Preceding claim 7 recites, “aluminum oxide layer”, its unclear if the alumina layer and aluminum oxide layer are the same layer or different layers. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claims 16-17, Applicant recites, “the intermediate connecting layer”. This phrase lacks antecedent basis. It appears that these claims are intended to depend from claim 18, thus for examination purposes they will be interpreted as depending from claim 18. Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2015/0372183 A1) in view of Hou (CN-115347055-A). Hou is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 1, Jin et al. discloses a solar cell (Fig. 11) comprising: a solar cell body comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 11, #110 & Paragraph 0026);
an emitter formed on a side of the substrate along a thickness direction of the solar cell (Fig. 11, #124 or #150); and
at least one cutting surface parallel to the thickness direction (See Annotated Jin et al. Fig. 11, below);
a field passivation layer disposed on a side of the cutting surface facing away from the substrate (Fig. 11, #122 & Paragraph 0031-0032).
Annotated Jin et al. Fig. 11
PNG
media_image1.png
293
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jin et al. does not disclose a first passivation layer disposed on the at least one cutting surface such that the field passivation layer is disposed on one side of the first passivation layer facing away from the substrate.
Hou discloses a first passivation layer (Fig. 4, #101 – Page 4, 6th Paragraph) disposed on a cutting surface (Fig. 4, right side of the substrate – Page 4, 6th Paragraph) and a field passivation layer disposed on one side of the first passivation layer facing away from the substrate (Fig. 4, #102 – Page 4, 8th Paragraph). Hou discloses that the inclusion of a first passivation layer chemically passivates a cut surface thus improving the crystal form matching with the silicon substrate, reduces interface state density, reduces carrier recombination rate and improves photoelectric conversion efficiency (Page 4, 6th Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Hou into Jin et al. solar cell such that a first passivation layer disposed on the at least one cutting surface such that the field passivation layer is disposed on one side of the first passivation layer facing away from the substrate for the advantages of improving the crystal form matching with the silicon substrate, reducing interface state density, reducing carrier recombination rate and improving photoelectric conversion efficiency.
In view of Claim 2, Jin et al. and Hou are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Jin et al. teaches that the field passivation layer (Fig. 11, #122) comprises a doping element with a conductivity with a conductivity type different from a conductivity type of a doping element of the emitter (Fig. 11, #150 – Paragraph 0029)
In view of Claim 3, Jin et al. and Hou are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Jin et al. teaches a doping concentration of the field passivation layer is greater than a doping concentration of the substrate (Fig. 11, #122 – it has the opposite doping conductivity of the substrate thus it would have a higher doping concentration of that conductivity).
In view of Claim 7, Jin et al. and Hou are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hou discloses that the first passivation layer is at least one of an aluminum oxide layer or silicon oxide layer (Fig. 4, #101 & Page 8, 3rd Paragraph).
In view of Claim 8, Jin et al. and Hou are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 7. Hou discloses that the first passivation layer comprises aluminum oxide (Fig. 4, #101 & Page 8, 3rd Paragraph).
In view of Claims 9-10, Jin et al. and Hou et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Hou does not disclose that along a first direction of the solar cell a thickness d2 of the first passivation layer is 1-20 nm (Fig. 4, #101 – Page 8, 5th Paragraph).
In view of Claim 11, Jin et al. and Hou et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Jin et al. teaches a second passivation layer (Fig. 11, #130) ana first electrode (Fig. 11, #140) along the thickness direction of the solar cell, wherein the second passivation layer is disposed on a side of the emitter away from the substrate (Fig. 11, #130 is disposed either away from #124 or #154), and wherein the first electrode is configured to be electrically connected to the emitter (Fig. 11, #140 is technically electrically connected to either #124 or #154 when the solar cell is generating electricity).
In view of Claim 12, Jin et al. and Hou et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 11. Jin et al. teaches that the second passivation layer is silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, or silicon oxide (Fig. 11, #130 - Paragraph 0035).
In view of Claim 15, Jin et al. and Hou et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 11. In regards to the limitation, “wherein during a preparation process, at least part of the first passivation layer and the field passivation layer is positioned on the second passivation layer and/or the third passivation layer, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim, specifically regarding the phrase " wherein during a preparation process". It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
In view of Claim 19, Jin et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Jin et al. teaches a photovoltaic module (Fig. 13), at least one cell string formed by connecting a plurality of solar cells of claim 1 (Fig. 13, #650); an encapsulation layer adapted for covering a surface of the cell string (Fig. 13, #631/#632 – Paragraph 0106), a cover plate adapted for covering a surface of the encapsulation layer away from the cell string (Fig. 13, #610/#620).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2015/0372183 A1) in view of Hou (CN-115347055-A) in view of Ha et al. (US 2019/0148573 A1). Hou is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 4, Jin et al. and Hou are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Jin et al. discloses that the field passivation layer is a doped silicon layer but is silent on whether its polycrystalline, amorphous or microcrystalline.
Ha et al. discloses that semiconductor regions formed via doping may utilize materials such as amorphous or polycrystalline silicon and that these are materials which may be easily manufactured using various methods such as deposition (Paragraph 0091). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use polycrystalline or amorphous silicon as Jin et al. silicon as it’s a material that may be easily manufactured using various methods such as deposition
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2015/0372183 A1) in view of Hou (CN-115347055-A) in view of Puaud et al. (US 2024/0121969 A1). Hou is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claims 5-6, Jin et al. and Hou et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. While Jin et al. discloses that along a first direction of the solar cell, the field passivation layer is present and thus has a thickness (Fig. 11, #122 top portion on top surface of substrate #110) its not disclosed that this thickness is from 10-100 nm, or the more limiting thickness of 20-90 nm.
Puaud et al. teaches a similar layer as Jin et al. that advantageously has a thickness between 20-40 nm (Paragraph 0060). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the field passivation layer with a thickness of 20-40 nm as Puaud et al. discloses that this thickness is advantageous.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2015/0372183 A1) in view of Hou (CN-115347055-A) in view of Liu et al. (US 2025/0081630 A1). Hou is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 13, Jin et al. and Hou are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Jin et al. teaches a doped conductive layer facing away from the substrate (Fig. 11, #150), and a third passivation layer disposed on one side of the doped conductive layer away from the substrate (Fig. 11, #160); and a second electrode passing through the third passivation layer to be electrically connected to the doped conductive layer (Fig. 11, #170 – Paragraph 0042) but does not disclose a tunnel oxide layer disposed between the substrate and the doped conductive layer.
Liu et al. discloses a tunnel oxide layer disposed between the substrate and the doped conductive layer that advantageously allows majority carriers to pass through while blocking minority carriers from passing through which helps to reduce carrier recombination (Fig. 2, #180 – Paragraph 0041). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include tunnel oxide layer disposed between the substrate and the doped conductive layer in modified Jin et al. solar cell for the advantages of allowing majority carriers to pass through while blocking minority carriers from passing through which helps to reduce carrier recombination.
In view of Claim 14, Jin et al., Hou, and Liu et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 13. Jin et al. teaches that the third passivation layer is at least one of silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, silicon oxide (Fig. 11, #160 & Paragraph 0050).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puaud et al. (US 2024/0107785 A1) in view of Jin et al. (US 2015/0372183 A1) in view of Hou (CN-115347055-A). Hou is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 18, Puaud et al. discloses a tandem solar cell (Fig. 2B) comprising: a bottom silicon cell (Fig. 2B, #110 – Paragraph 0063), and a top solar cell comprising perovskite (Fig. 2B, #130 – Paragraph 0065); and an intermediate connecting layer connecting the bottom and top solar cell (Fig. 2B, #120).
Puaud et al. does not disclose the bottom solar cell is the solar cell according to claim 1.
Jin et al. discloses a solar cell (Fig. 11) comprising: a solar cell body comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 11, #110 & Paragraph 0026);
an emitter formed on a side of the substrate along a thickness direction of the solar cell (Fig. 11, #124 or #150); and
at least one cutting surface parallel to the thickness direction (See Annotated Jin et al. Fig. 11, below);
a field passivation layer disposed on a side of the cutting surface facing away from the substrate (Fig. 11, #122 & Paragraph 0031-0032).
Jin et al. discloses that this silicon solar cell has excellent photovoltaic conversion efficiency (Paragraph 0007). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute Puaud et al. bottom silicon cell for the solar cell of Jin et al. for the advantage of utilizing a solar cell with excellent photovoltaic conversion efficiency.
Annotated Jin et al. Fig. 11
PNG
media_image1.png
293
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jin et al. does not disclose a first passivation layer disposed on the at least one cutting surface such that the field passivation layer is disposed on one side of the first passivation layer facing away from the substrate.
Hou discloses a first passivation layer (Fig. 4, #101 – Page 4, 6th Paragraph) disposed on a cutting surface (Fig. 4, right side of the substrate – Page 4, 6th Paragraph) and a field passivation layer disposed on one side of the first passivation layer facing away from the substrate (Fig. 4, #102 – Page 4, 8th Paragraph). Hou discloses that the inclusion of a first passivation layer chemically passivates a cut surface thus improving the crystal form matching with the silicon substrate, reduces interface state density, reduces carrier recombination rate and improves photoelectric conversion efficiency (Page 4, 6th Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Hou into Jin et al. solar cell such that a first passivation layer disposed on the at least one cutting surface such that the field passivation layer is disposed on one side of the first passivation layer facing away from the substrate for the advantages of improving the crystal form matching with the silicon substrate, reducing interface state density, reducing carrier recombination rate and improving photoelectric conversion efficiency.
In view of Claims 16-17, Puaud et al., Jin et al., and Hou are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 18. Puaud et al. discloses that the intermediate connecting layer is a transparent electrode composite layer known as TCO (Fig. 2B, #120 – Paragraph 0064).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (US 2015/0372183 A1) in view of Hou (CN-115347055-A) in view of Li et al. (US 2023/0078580 A1). Hou is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 20, Jin et al. and Hou are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 19. Jin et al. does not disclose a surface of the cover plate toward the encapsulation layer is a concave-convex surface.
Li et al. teaches a surface of a cover plate toward an encapsulation layer is a concave-convex surface to advantageously increase the utilization rate of incident light (Paragraph 0078). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the surface of the cover plate toward the encapsulation layer be a concave-convex surface in modified Jin et al. photovoltaic module for the advantage of increasing the utilization rate of incident light.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm 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 T 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights