DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is NON-Final.
Remarks
Claims 1-7 and 17-20 are withdrawn.
Claim 8 is amended.
Claims 11 and 13 are cancelled.
Claim 21 is new.
Claims 1-10, 12, and 14-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 8-10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GU (CN 114843352 A, see English Machine Translation) in view of BALAJI (Pathways for efficiency improvements of industrial PERC silicon solar cells).
Regarding claim 8, GU teaches a solar cell (see the solar cell in Figs. 1-14), comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (see the substrate 10; [0074] The substrate 10 may be a P-type silicon wafer or an N-type silicon wafer);
an emitter layer formed on a surface of the semiconductor substrate (GU discloses “The solar cell 100 may be a PERC solar cell (a passivated emitter and rear surface area cell), and the substrate 10 of the solar cell 100 may be a silicon wafer. The substrate 10 may be a P-type silicon wafer. The substrate 10 includes a base layer and a diffusion layer, and the polarities of the two are opposite. If the base layer is a P-type base layer, the diffusion layer is an N-type diffusion layer” [0074]; BALAJI discloses a Passivated Emitter and Rear Cell (PERC) device on p-type silicon wafer, wherein the n-type emitter are formed on the both surfaces of the p-type silicon wafer (see Fig. 8 a); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the N-type diffusion layer (corresponding to the claimed “emitter layer”) so as to be located on the both surfaces of the P-type silicon wafer in GU as taught by BALAJI, because the change in configuration of a device is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (see MPEP § 2144.04).), wherein a conductivity type of the semiconductor substrate is opposite to a conductivity type of the emitter layer (see the discussion above), wherein the semiconductor substrate and the emitter layer form a PN junction (The P-type silicon wafer and the N-type diffusion layer form a PN junction);
a passivation layer (see the first passivation film layer 20) formed on the emitter layer (see the discussion above and Figs. 3, 8);
an insulating layer (see the first bonding layer 30; [0080] the first bonding layer 30 may be a silicon oxide layer, [0081] the good insulation properties of the silicon oxide layer can also prevent leakage) formed on the passivation layer (see Figs. 3, 8);
a plurality of busbars (see the busbars 40) formed on the insulating layer (see Figs. 3, 8), wherein the plurality of busbars extend in a first direction (see the front and back direction) and are arranged at intervals in a second direction (see the left and right direction) (see Fig. 3), the first direction being different from the second direction (see Fig. 3); and
a plurality of fingers (see the sub-grid lines 50) formed on the insulating layer (see Figs. 3, 9), wherein the plurality of fingers extend in the second direction and are arranged at intervals in the first direction (see the discussion above and Figs. 3, 8), wherein each of the plurality of busbars intersects with respective fingers of the plurality of fingers, and the plurality of fingers penetrate the passivation layer and the insulating layer to be connected to the emitter layer (see Figs. 3, 8),
wherein the plurality of busbars extend toward the emitter layer (see the discussion above and Figs. 3, 8), wherein a depth of the plurality of busbars extending into the insulating layer is greater than 20% of a thickness of the insulating layer (GU discloses the first busbar 40 is arranged on the first bonding layer 30 and embedded in the first bonding layer 30 to form a relatively close contact, so that a higher pull-off force can be formed between the first busbar 40 and the substrate 10 and the first passivation film layer 20 as a whole, and at the same time, there is no direct contact between the first busbar 40 and the substrate 10 or the contact depth is shallow, so that the composite loss of the first busbar 40 can be reduced, thereby improving the efficiency of the solar cell 100 [n0068]; As the pull-off force and the composite loss are variables that can be modified by adjusting said depth of the busbar, the precise depth of the busbar would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed depth of the busbar cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the depth of the busbar in the apparatus of GU to obtain the desired balance between the pull-off force and the composite loss (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).), a depth of the plurality of busbars extending into the passivation layer is no greater than 90% of a thickness of the passivation layer (see Fig. 8; The depth of the busbars 40 extending into the first passivation film layer 20 is zero % of a thickness of the passivation layer), wherein a depth direction, a thickness direction of the passivation layer, and a thickness direction of the insulating layer being consistent with a direction toward the semiconductor substrate (see Fig. 8), and
wherein a ratio of the depth of each of the plurality of busbars extending into the passivation layer to the thickness of the passivation layer is greater than or equal to 20% or the depth of the plurality of busbars extending into the passivation layer is 0 (see Fig. 8; The depth of the busbars 40 extending into the first passivation film layer 20 is zero).
Regarding claim 9, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 8.
Modified GU teaches the emitter layer is formed on a back surface of the solar cell (see the combination in the rejection of claim 8).
Regarding claim 10, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 8.
Regarding the claimed “wherein the emitter layer is formed by doping in an original structure of the semiconductor substrate, or by performing a deposition process on the surface of the semiconductor substrate”, the recitation is directed to the method of making a product and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in 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. See MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims [R-9]. See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 21, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 8.
GU teaches wherein the thickness of the insulating layer is greater than or equal to 40 nm and less than or equal to 100 nm (GU discloses that when the thickness of the first bonding layer 30 is too thin, the uniformity of the first bonding layer 30 becomes poor during the production process, but when the thickness of the first bonding layer 30 is too thick, the length of the first sub-grid line 50 that needs to be bent upward will be too large, which may easily cause breakage. As the uniformity of the first bonding layer and the length of the first sub-grid line that needs to be bent upward are variables that can be modified by adjusting the thickness of the first bonding layer, the precise thickness would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed thickness cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the first bonding layer in the apparatus of GU to obtain the desired balance between the uniformity of the first bonding layer and the length of the first sub-grid line that needs to be bent upward (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GU (CN 114843352 A, see English Machine Translation) in view of BALAJI (Pathways for efficiency improvements of industrial PERC silicon solar cells) as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of ZOU (CN 116209290 A, see English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 12, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 8.
Regarding the claimed “wherein the thickness of the passivation layer is greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 20 nm, and the depth of each of the plurality of busbars extending into the passivation layer is greater than or equal to 1 nm and less than or equal to 18 nm”, GU teaches a passivation layer (see the first passivation film layer 20) and the thickness of the passivation layer ([n0075] The thickness of the first passivation film layer 20 can be 50nm-90nm), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed feature. However, ZOU teaches a perovskite-silicon-based laminated cell, wherein the silicon based cell comprises the front passivation layer (32) and the back passivation layer (36) and wherein the thickness of the front passivation layer (32) is 2 nm to 30 nm (see P3). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the front passivation layer with a thickness from 2 nm to 30 nm for the first passivation film layer in the device of modified GU as taught by ZOU, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144). Therefore, modified GU teaches the thickness of the passivation layer is greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 20 nm (see 2 nm to 30 nm; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected thickness within the disclosed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I.).), and the depth of each of the plurality of busbars extending into the passivation layer is greater than or equal to 1 nm and less than or equal to 18 nm (Since the depth of the busbars 40 extending into the first passivation film layer 20 is about 50% of a thickness of the passivation layer (see the rejection of claim 8), the depth of the busbars extending into the first passivation film layer is 1 nm to 15 nm).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GU (CN 114843352 A, see English Machine Translation) in view of BALAJI (Pathways for efficiency improvements of industrial PERC silicon solar cells) as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of XU (US 20230139905 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 8.
Regarding the claimed “wherein each of the plurality of busbars comprises a busbar connecting line and a plurality of pads, wherein the plurality of pads are arranged at intervals on the busbar connecting line in the first direction, and wherein a width of each of the plurality of pads is greater than a width of the busbar connecting line, a width direction of each of the plurality of pads and a width direction of the busbar connecting line being consistent with the second direction”, GU teaches each of the plurality of busbars (see the busbars 40) comprises a busbar connecting line (The busbar in Fig. 3 shows a busbar connecting line), a first direction (see the front and back direction) and a second direction (see the left and right direction) (see Fig. 3), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed “a plurality of pads, wherein the plurality of pads are arranged at intervals on the busbar connecting line in the first direction, and wherein a width of each of the plurality of pads is greater than a width of the busbar connecting line, a width direction of each of the plurality of pads and a width direction of the busbar connecting line being consistent with the second direction”. However, XU discloses an electrode structure for a solar cell, and XU teaches each of the plurality of busbars (see the busbars 1 & the electrode pads 3) comprises a busbar connecting line (see the bus bar connecting line of busbar) and a plurality of pads (see the electrode pads) (see Figs. 1-3), wherein the plurality of pads are arranged at intervals on the busbar connecting line in the first direction (see the front and back direction) (see Figs. 1-2), and wherein a width of each of the plurality of pads is greater than a width of the busbar connecting line (see Fig. 3), a width direction of each of the plurality of pads and a width direction of the busbar connecting line being consistent with the second direction (see the left and right direction) (see Figs. 1-3). And XU discloses the electrode pads 3 help to improve soldering tension between the solder strip and the electrode pads 3 and can also reduce the probability of micro cracks during assembly [0028]. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the electrode pads so as to have the width and the arrangement as described above in the device of modified GU as taught by XU, because the electrode pads help to improve soldering tension between the solder strip and the electrode pads and can also reduce the probability of micro cracks during assembly.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 14.
Regarding the claimed “wherein a quantity of the plurality of busbars is greater than or equal to 8 and less than or equal to 25”, GU discloses 2 busbars (see Fig. 3), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed “greater than or equal to 8 and less than or equal to 25”. However, XU discloses an electrode structure for a solar cell, wherein Fig.1 shows that the quantity of the busbars is 9 (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the 9 busbars in the device of modified GU as taught by XU, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GU (CN 114843352 A, see English Machine Translation) in view of BALAJI (Pathways for efficiency improvements of industrial PERC silicon solar cells) as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of XU (US 20230139905 A1) and NOY (US 20230071007 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 8.
Regarding the claimed “wherein: a quantity of the plurality of fingers is greater than or equal to 100 and less than or equal to 200; and a width of each of the plurality of fingers is greater than or equal to 20 µm and less than or equal to 45 µm, a width direction of each of the plurality of fingers being consistent with the first direction”, GU discloses the quantity of the sub-grid lines 50 is 6 (see Fig. 3) and the sub-grid lines 50 has a width being consistent with the front and back direction (see Fig. 3), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed “greater than or equal to 100 and less than or equal to 200; and a width of each of the plurality of fingers is greater than or equal to 20 µm and less than or equal to 45 µm”. However, XU discloses an electrode structure for a solar cell, wherein Fig.1 shows that the quantity of the fingers is 100 (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the 100 fingers in the device of modified GU as taught by XU, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144). Further regarding the claimed “a width of each of the plurality of fingers is greater than or equal to 20 µm and less than or equal to 45 µm”, NOY discloses a PV cell, wherein the finger width on receiving substrate 70 may be 30 μm [0039]. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the fingers with 30 μm width in the device of modified GU as taught by NOY, because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/06/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s argument regarding that Fig. 9 of the prior art, GU, does not teach “wherein a ratio of the depth of each of the plurality of busbars extending into the passivation layer to the thickness of the passivation layer is greater than or equal to 20%”, because Fig. 9 is not to scale and provides no explicit numerical quantification of depths or ratios, is persuasive. However, the amended claim is rejected under the new ground based on Figs. 3 and 8 of GU.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE-SIK KANG whose telephone number is 571-272-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am – 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T. Martin can be reached on 571-270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE-SIK KANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728