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 .
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the abbreviation “lg” is interpreted as referring to a logarithm with a base of 10.
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 1-2, 5-8, 10-11, 13-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 2012/0291838) in view of Seno et al. (US 2019/0386160).
Regarding claim 1, Jang discloses a solar cell (abstract) comprising: a silicon
substrate ([0058]), wherein the silicon substrate is doped entirely with antimony ([0058]); and a plurality of fingers formed on a surface of the silicon substrate, wherein the plurality of fingers extend in a first direction parallel to the surface of the silicon substrate (141a and 142 in Fig. 11), and wherein a density of fingers with a same polarity in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and parallel to the surface of the silicon substrate is n fingers/cm (density of 141a in Fig. 11).
Jang does not explicitly disclose a concentration of antimony in the silicon substrate is a atom/cm3, wherein a ranges from 1E13 to 2E17.
Seno discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a concentration of antimony in the silicon substrate ranges from 1E14 to 5E16 cm-3 ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the antimony doped silicon substrate of Jang with a concentration of antimony within the range disclosed by Seno, because as evidenced by Seno, the use of an silicon substrate doped with antimony within the disclosed concentration range amounts to the use of a known material/component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the antimony doped silicon substrate of Jang within the concentration range disclosed by Seno.
It is further noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Modified Jang does not explicitly disclose the density of fingers and the concentration of antimony satisfy a first expression: 35 – k * lg a ≤ n and a second expression: n ≤ 35 – lg a, where k is a constant that is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 2, however, as the material cost and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the value of n, with said material cost and efficiency of operation both increasing as the value of n is increased, the precise value of n would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed value of n cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the value of n in the apparatus of modified Jang to obtain the desired balance between the material cost and the operation efficiency (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).
Regarding claim 10, Jang discloses a photovoltaic module comprising a solar cell
(abstract) comprising: a silicon substrate ([0058]), wherein the silicon substrate is entirely doped with antimony ([0058]); and a plurality of fingers formed on a surface of the silicon substrate, wherein the plurality of fingers extend in a first direction parallel to the surface of the silicon substrate (141a and 142 in Fig. 11), and wherein a density of fingers with a same polarity in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and parallel to the surface of the silicon substrate is n fingers/cm (density of 141a in Fig. 11).
Jang does not explicitly disclose a concentration of antimony in the silicon substrate is a atom/cm3, wherein a ranges from 1E13 to 2E17.
Seno discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a concentration of antimony in the silicon substrate ranges from 1E14 to 5E16 cm-3 ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the antimony doped silicon substrate of Jang with a concentration of antimony within the range disclosed by Seno, because as evidenced by Seno, the use of an silicon substrate doped with antimony within the disclosed concentration range amounts to the use of a known material/component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when using forming the antimony doped silicon substrate of Jang within the concentration range disclosed by Seno.
It is further noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Modified Jang does not explicitly disclose the density of fingers and the concentration of antimony satisfy a first expression: 35 – k * lg a ≤ n and a second expression n ≤ 35 – lg a, where k is a constant that is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 2, however, as the material cost and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the value of n, with said material cost and efficiency of operation both increasing as the value of n is increased, the precise value of n would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed value of n cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the value of n in the apparatus of modified Jang to obtain the desired balance between the material cost and the operation efficiency (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).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, modified Jang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Jang does not explicitly disclose n ≥ 35 – k * lg a + c/b where c equals 50 microns, as the material cost and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the value of n, with said material cost and efficiency of operation both increasing as the value of n is increased, the precise value of n would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed value of n cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the value of n in the apparatus of modified Jang to obtain the desired balance between the material cost and the operation efficiency (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).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, modified Jang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Jang further discloses the solar cell is a back contact solar cell (Jang – [0056]).
While modified Jang does not explicitly disclose k=1.9, as the material cost and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the value of n, with said material cost and efficiency of operation both increasing as the value of n is increased, the precise value of n would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed value of n cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the value of n in the apparatus of modified Jang to obtain the desired balance between the material cost and the operation efficiency (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).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, modified Jang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Jang further discloses the surface of the silicon substrate comprises an electron collection region, a hole collection region, and an isolating region located between the electron collection region and the hole collection region (Jang – 120a and 171a in Fig. 6 are electron and hole collection regions, respectively, and the area between 120a and 171a in Fig. 6 is an isolating region).
While modified Jang does not explicitly disclose n ≥ 35 – 1.9 lg a + c/b-d where c equals 50 microns, as the material cost and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the value of n, with said material cost and efficiency of operation both increasing as the value of n is increased, the precise value of n would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed value of n cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the value of n in the apparatus of modified Jang to obtain the desired balance between the material cost and the operation efficiency (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).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, modified Jang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Jang further discloses the bottom of the isolating region is a surface of the silicon substrate corresponding to the isolating region (Jang - the area between 120a and 171a in Fig. 6 is an isolating region), and the solar cell comprises an interface passivation layer, wherein the bottom of the electron collection region is a surface of the interface passivation layer close to the silicon substrate (Jang – 120a in relation to 192 in Fig. 6).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “wherein the depth of the isolating region is a height difference corresponding to an average depth from a bottom of one of the electron collection region and the hole collection region to a bottom of the isolating region, wherein the bottom of the one of the electron collection region and the hole collection region is farther away from the bottom of the isolating region along a depth direction perpendicular to the surface of the silicon substrate than a bottom of the other one of the electron collection region and the hole collection region,” 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 claims 8 and 16, modified Jang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Jang further discloses a is 1E14 to 5E16 cm-3 (Seno – [0024]).
It is further noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, modified Jang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Jang further discloses an average concentration of antimony in each of multiple portions of the silicon substrate is approximately the same (Jang – [0058]; Seno – [0024]).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (US 2012/0291838) in view of Seno et al. (US 2019/0386160) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Herasimenka et al. (US 2016/0359058).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, modified Jang discloses all the claim limitations as
set forth above.
Modified Jang does not explicitly disclose a width of each of the plurality of fingers ranges from 10 to 200 microns.
Herasimenka discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a finger width between 1 and 50 microns ([0009], claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each of the plurality of fingers of modified Jang with a finger width between 1 and 50 microns, as disclosed by Herasimenka, because as evidenced by Herasimenka, the formation of electrode fingers with a width between 1 and 50 microns amounts to the use of a known dimension in the art for the formation of electrode fingers, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the fingers of modified Jang with the width disclosed based on the teaching of Herasimenka.
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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8, 10-12, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2016/0190363) in view of Seno et al. (US 2019/0386160).
Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses a solar cell (abstract) comprising: a silicon
substrate ([0042]), wherein the silicon substrate is doped entirely with antimony ([0044]); and a plurality of fingers formed on a surface of the silicon substrate, wherein the plurality of fingers extend in a first direction parallel to the surface of the silicon substrate ([0141]), and wherein a density of fingers with a same polarity in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and parallel to the surface of the silicon substrate is n fingers/cm ([0141] - density of 140).
Lim does not explicitly disclose a concentration of antimony in the silicon substrate is a atom/cm3, wherein a ranges from 1E13 to 2E17.
Seno discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a concentration of antimony in the silicon substrate ranges from 1E14 to 5E16 cm-3 ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the antimony doped silicon substrate of Lim with a concentration of antimony within the range disclosed by Seno, because as evidenced by Seno, the use of an silicon substrate doped with antimony within the disclosed concentration range amounts to the use of a known material/component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when using forming the antimony doped silicon substrate of Lim within the concentration range disclosed by Seno.
It is further noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Modified Lim does not explicitly disclose the density of fingers and the concentration of antimony satisfy a first expression: 35 – k * lg a ≤ n and a second expression: n ≤ 35 – lg a, where k is a constant that is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 2, however, as the material cost and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the value of n, with said material cost and efficiency of operation both increasing as the value of n is increased, the precise value of n would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed value of n cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the value of n in the apparatus of modified Lim to obtain the desired balance between the material cost and the operation efficiency (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).
Regarding claim 10, Lim discloses a photovoltaic module comprising a solar cell (abstract) comprising: a silicon substrate ([0042]), wherein the silicon substrate is doped entirely with antimony ([0044]); and a plurality of fingers formed on a surface of the silicon substrate, wherein the plurality of fingers extend in a first direction parallel to the surface of the silicon substrate ([0141]), and wherein a density of fingers with a same polarity in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and parallel to the surface of the silicon substrate is n fingers/cm ([0141] - density of 140).
Lim does not explicitly disclose a concentration of antimony in the silicon substrate is a atom/cm3, wherein a ranges from 1E13 to 2E17.
Seno discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a concentration of antimony in the silicon substrate ranges from 1E14 to 5E16 cm-3 ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the antimony doped silicon substrate of Lim with a concentration of antimony within the range disclosed by Seno, because as evidenced by Seno, the use of an silicon substrate doped with antimony within the disclosed concentration range amounts to the use of a known material/component in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when using forming the antimony doped silicon substrate of Lim within the concentration range disclosed by Seno.
It is further noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Modified Lim does not explicitly disclose the density of fingers and the concentration of antimony satisfy a first expression: 35 – k * lg a ≤ n and a second expression: n ≤ 35 – lg a, where k is a constant that is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 2, however, as the material cost and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the value of n, with said material cost and efficiency of operation both increasing as the value of n is increased, the precise value of n would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed value of n cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the value of n in the apparatus of modified Lim to obtain the desired balance between the material cost and the operation efficiency (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).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, modified Lim discloses all the claim limitations as set
forth above.
While modified Lim does not explicitly disclose n ≥ 35 – k * lg a + c/b where c equal 50 microns, as the material cost and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the value of n, with said material cost and efficiency of operation both increasing as the value of n is increased, the precise value of n would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed value of n cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the value of n in the apparatus of modified Lim to obtain the desired balance between the material cost and the operation efficiency (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).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, modified Lim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lim further discloses the solar cell is a double-sided contact solar cell (Lim – Fig. 6B).
While modified Lim does not explicitly disclose k=2, as the material cost and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the value of n, with said material cost and efficiency of operation both increasing as the value of n is increased, the precise value of n would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed value of n cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the value of n in the apparatus of modified Lim to obtain the desired balance between the material cost and the operation efficiency (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).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, modified Lim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lim further discloses a is 1E14 to 5E16 cm-3 (Seno – [0024]).
It is further noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, modified Lim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lim further discloses an average concentration of antimony in each of multiple portions of the silicon substrate is approximately the same (Lim – [0044]; Seno – [0024]).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2016/0190363) in view of Seno et al. (US 2019/0386160) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Herasimenka et al. (US 2016/0359058).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, modified Lim discloses all the claim limitations as set
forth above.
Modified Lim does not explicitly disclose a width of each of the plurality of fingers ranges from 10 to 200 microns.
Herasimenka discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a finger width between 1 and 50 microns ([0009], claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each of the plurality of fingers of modified Lim with a finger width between 1 and 50 microns, as disclosed by Herasimenka, because as evidenced by Herasimenka, the formation of electrode fingers with a width between 1 and 50 microns amounts to the use of a known dimension in the art for the formation of electrode fingers, and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the fingers of modified Lim with the width disclosed based on the teaching of Herasimenka.
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).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the specification provides evidence for the criticality of the antimony concentration. In response to Applicant’s argument, the limitations recited in the claims are not commensurate in scope with the conditions/parameters described in the as-filed specification which produce the results in Tables 1-4. For example, claims 1 and 10 recite a ranges from 1E13 to 2E17, however, Tables 1-4 of the as-filed specification display results for a of 8E13 on the lower end, and 8E16 on the higher end, therefore, the claimed range of 1E13 to 2E17 is not commensurate in scope with the range of concentration values in Tables 1-4. Additionally, the results in Tables 1 and 3 are achieved with solar cells with thicknesses of 150 microns, and the results in Tables 2 and 4 are achieved with solar cells with thicknesses of 100 microns, however, the claims do not specify the thickness of the solar cell. Further, Tables 1 and 2 of the as-filed specification include results achieved with a TOPCon solar cell ([0107]) and Tables 3 and 4 include results achieved with a back contact solar cell ([0113]).
Additionally, with regard to the limitation “k is a constant that is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 2” recited in claims 1 and 10, Tables 1 and 2 in the as-filed specification present results for k values of 1 and 2 without presenting results commensurate in scope with the claimed range, and Tables 3 and 4 present results for k values of 1 and 1.9 without presenting results commensurate in scope with the claimed range.
As set forth in MPEP 716.02(d) II., to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
The claim limitations are not commensurate in scope with the conditions / parameters described in the as-filed specification in which the results described are achieved. Absent a showing of unexpected results (commensurate in scope with the limitations claimed), the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 A.
Applicant argues that the prior art cited does not suggest that substrate doping
and surface metallization density are inter-related. Applicant argues that the solar cell efficiency via this specific formula, as shown in Tables 1-4, is an unexpected result that is not predictable from the individual teachings of the cited references.
In response to Applicant’s argument, as set forth above, the claim limitations are
not commensurate in scope with the conditions/parameters described in the as-filed specification in which the results described are achieved. Absent a showing of unexpected results (commensurate in scope with the limitations claimed), the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 A.
As set forth in MPEP 716.02(d), whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, “the objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support."
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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