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 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 17, 18, 25 and 26 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Claim 17 recites the broad recitation “the second hydrogen barrier layer comprises AlOx”, and the claim also recites “preferably wherein the second hydrogen barrier layer consists of AlOx”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 18 recites “the second hydrogen permeating rate”, which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 25 recites the broad recitation “the first hydrogen barrier layer comprises AlOx”, and the claim also recites “preferably wherein the first hydrogen barrier layer consists of AlOx”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 26 recites the broad recitation “temperature between 400 and 900 oC”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 500 and 800 oC”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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) 1-5, 11, 14, 15, 22, 26, and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0075789 to Lӧper (included in Applicant’s 5/23/2025 IDS).
Regarding claims 1-5, 11, 14, and 15, Lӧper recites a solar cell comprising a Si wafer 1 (¶0108) and a dielectric layer 10 deposited on the Si wafer (¶0110, 0126), wherein the dielectric layer comprises a hydrogen-containing dielectric material (¶0113), and the solar cell further comprises a first hydrogen barrier layer 12 deposited on the dielectric layer (Figs. 3, ¶0147-0150, 0155).
Per claims 2 and 3, the Si wafer 1 is a p-type Si wafer, an n-type Si wafer, or an intrinsic Si wafer (¶0015, 0198).
Per claim 4, the solar cell further comprises at least one contact 6, wherein the at least one contact comprises phosphorus-diffused silicon or boron-diffused silicon (¶0180, 0181, 0188).
Per claim 5, the first hydrogen barrier layer 12 comprises SiOx, SiNx, SiC, TiOx, or AlOx (¶0155).
Per claim 11, the limitation that the first hydrogen barrier layer 12 is deposited by ALD is a product-by-process limitation. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Per claims 14 and 15, the hydrogen-containing dielectric material comprises SiN, SiOxNy, SiOx, ZrOx, or SiC (¶0023).
Regarding claims 22, 26, 28, and 29, Lӧper recites a method of manufacturing a solar cell, said method comprising depositing a first hydrogen barrier layer 12 on a dielectric layer 10 (Fig. 3, ¶0110, 0126, 0147-0150, 0155), wherein the dielectric layer comprises a hydrogen-containing dielectric material (¶0113).
Per claim 26, the method further comprises a bulk hydrogen injection step after the deposition of the first hydrogen barrier layer 12 (Fig. 3A, ¶0113, 0147-0150, 0156), wherein the bulk hydrogen injection step comprises heating the solar cell at a temperature of 600 to 1000oC (¶0017), particularly at 800oC (¶0251).
Per claims 28 and 29, the hydrogen-containing dielectric material comprises SiN, SiOxNy, or SiC (¶0023).
Regarding claim 30, Lӧper teaches a solar cell obtained by the method having the limitations of claim 22 (see rejection of claim 22 above).
Claim(s) 1, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 22, 23, 26, and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2009/0071535 to Moeller (included in Applicant’s 5/23/2025 IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, Moeller teaches a solar cell comprising a Si wafer S (Fig. 1, ¶0018, 0035) and a dielectric layer S1 deposited on the Si wafer (¶0010, 0015), wherein the dielectric layer comprises a hydrogen-containing dielectric material, which, per claims 14 and 15 comprises SiN, (¶0016 clearly recites that the material of lower partial layer S1 is hydrogen-containing silicon nitride, this material must necessarily be dielectric; “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2112.01), and the solar cell further comprises a first hydrogen barrier layer S2 deposited on the dielectric layer (¶0015, 0018).
Per claim 5, the first hydrogen barrier layer S2 comprises TiOx (Ibid.).
Per claim 11, the limitation that the first hydrogen barrier layer S2 is deposited by ALD is a product-by-process limitation. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Per claim 12, the first hydrogen barrier layer S2 is deposited directly on the dielectric layer S1 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 22, 23, 26, 28, and 29, Moeller teaches a method of manufacturing a solar cell, the method comprising depositing a first hydrogen barrier layer S2 (¶0015, 0018) on a dielectric layer S1, wherein the dielectric layer comprises a hydrogen-containing dielectric material which, per claims 28 and 29, is SiN, (¶0016 clearly recites that the material of lower partial layer S1 is hydrogen-containing silicon nitride, this material must necessarily be dielectric; “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2112.01).
Per claim 23, the first hydrogen barrier layer S2 is deposited directly on the dielectric layer S1 (Fig. 1).
Per claim 26, the method further comprises a bulk hydrogen injection step after the deposition of the first hydrogen barrier layer, wherein the bulk hydrogen injection step comprises heating the solar cell at a temperature of 500 oC (¶0038, 0039 describes the formation of both layers S1 and S2 in a continuous furnace held at 500oC).
Regarding claim 30, Moeller teaches a solar cell obtained by the method having the limitations of claim 22 (see rejection of claim 22 above).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 10-12, 14-16, 21-23, and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN115101605 to Jolywood (translation relied upon herein, document and translation included in Applicant’s 5/23/2025 IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 10-12, 14-16, and 21, Jolywood teaches a solar cell (Fig. 2) comprising a Si wafer 11 (“crystalline silicon substrate”, p. 13 of translation) and a dielectric layer 15 deposited on the Si wafer (“hydrogen-rich layer”, p. 14), wherein the dielectric layer comprises a hydrogen-containing dielectric material (bottom of p. 8 of translation: “the passivation film is an insulating material”), and the solar cell further includes a first hydrogen barrier layer 162 deposited on the dielectric layer (p. 15 of translation).
Per claim 2, the Si wafer 11 is an n-type Si wafer (middle p. 10, bottom p. 17 of translation).
Per claim 4, the solar cell further comprises at least one contact comprising phosphorus-diffused silicon (p. 13: “the conductive type of the heavily doped polysilicon layer 132 is N-type or P-type”; p. 19: “the doped polysilicon layer 132 is a phosphorus-doped polysilicon layer”).
Per claim 10, the first hydrogen barrier layer 162 has a thickness greater than zero and less than 100 nm (p. 15 of the translation: “Specifically the thicknesses of the first hydrogen barrier layer 161 and the second hydrogen barrier layer 162 are both less than or equal to 100 nm.”), which substantially overlaps the claimed range.
Per claim 11, the limitation that the first hydrogen barrier layer 162 is deposited by ALD is a product-by-process limitation. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Per claim 12, the first hydrogen barrier layer 162 is deposited directly on the dielectric layer 15 (Fig. 2).
Per claims 14 and 15, the hydrogen-containing dielectric material comprises SiN, SiOx, SiOxNy, TiOx (bottom p. 14 of translation).
Per claim 16, the solar cell further comprises a second hydrogen barrier layer 161, wherein the second hydrogen barrier layer is not in direct contact with the first hydrogen barrier layer 162 (Fig. 2, p. 14 of translation).
Per claim 20, the second hydrogen barrier layer 161 has a thickness greater than zero and less than 100 nm (p. 15 of the translation: “Specifically the thicknesses of the first hydrogen barrier layer 161 and the second hydrogen barrier layer 162 are both less than or equal to 100 nm.”), which substantially overlaps the claimed range.
Per claim 21, the limitation that the second hydrogen barrier layer 161 is deposited by ALD is a product-by-process limitation. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claims 22, 23, 28, and 29, Jolywood teaches a method of manufacturing a solar cell (Fig. 2), the method comprising depositing a first hydrogen barrier layer 162 on a dielectric layer 15 (“hydrogen-rich layer”, p. 14), wherein the dielectric layer comprises a hydrogen-containing dielectric material (bottom of p. 8 of translation: “the passivation film is an insulating material”).
Per claim 23, the first hydrogen barrier layer 162 is deposited directly on the dielectric layer 15 (Fig. 2).
Per claims 28 and 29, the hydrogen-containing dielectric material comprises SiN, SiOx, SiOxNy, TiOx (bottom p. 14 of translation).
Regarding claim 30, Jolywood teaches a solar cell obtained by the method having the limitations of claim 22 (see rejection of claim 22 above).
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, 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) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lӧper as applied to claim 5 above.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Lӧper teaches the limitations of claim 5. While Lӧper does not specifically teach an embodiment of the first hydrogen barrier layer 12 that comprises or consists of AlOx, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art because it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art recognized purpose (¶0155). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim(s) 8-10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lӧper as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Lӧper teaches the limitations of claim 1. The reference specifically teaches that the hydrogen-containing dielectric layer 10 is permeable to hydrogen (¶0110: “upon firing of the heterojunction layer stack of the invention a passivating species (i.e. hydrogen, fluorine, nitrogen, or oxygen) contained in doped silicon based layer 6 or another layer forming the passivating and conductive stack, evolve and incorporate in the wide band gap material layer 10 or at the interface between the light absorbing silicon layer 1 and wide band gap layer 10 and reduces the interface state density.”; ¶0113: “firing can also be used to hydrogenate the wide band gap material layer 10 and decrease its defect density and the interface with the light absorbing silicon layer 1.”). Therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the hydrogen-containing dielectric layer 10 has a second hydrogen permeation rate.
Conversely, the first hydrogen barrier layer 12 is specifically intended to have a lower, first hydrogen permeation rate (¶0148-0149: “For this means, the capping layer 12: [0149] reduces the hydrogen effusion from the layers underneath”; ¶0153-0154: “A more elegant solution is to apply a layer to the substrate which reduces the penetration of impurities to the substrate, thus also called diffusion barrier. In that case, the diffusion barrier might be needed to remove afterwards, but the silicon wafer does not need to be etched. With the capping layer acting as diffusion barrier, it protects the heterojunction layer stack during a diffusion process.).”).
Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the first hydrogen permeation rate with respect to the second hydrogen permeating rate in order to ensure the desired hydrogen permeation occurs during treatment. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 9, Lӧper teaches the limitations of claim 1. In an embodiment, the first hydrogen barrier layer 12 has holes, through which an electrode contacts a conductive layer 6 (Figs. 6C, 6D, ¶0020, 0108, 0162, 0163, 0172). A skilled artisan would understand that the ability of the electrode to collect current depends on the area of contact or number of points of contact between an electrode the conductive layer. Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the pinhole density in the first hydrogen barrier layer in order to optimize electrical contact. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 10, Lӧper teaches the limitations of claim 1. The reference teaches that the first hydrogen barrier should preferably be formed with a thickness between 50 and 500 nm (Table 1). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Lӧper teaches the limitations of claim 1. The reference clearly teaches that hydrogen has a quantifiable function with respect to silicon wafers, and that the amount of hydrogen in the hydrogen-containing dielectric layer is a known result effective variable for ensuring that function (¶0035, 0036, 0048, 0110, 0113, 0148). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the atomic percentage of hydrogen in the hydrogen-containing dielectric material in order to achieve optimize the passivation function. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lӧper as applied to claim 22 above.
Regarding claim 25, Lӧper teaches the limitations of claim 22. While Lӧper does not specifically teach an embodiment of the first hydrogen barrier layer 12 that comprises or consists of AlOx, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art because it would have merely required the choice of a known material for its art recognized purpose (¶0155). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 27, Lӧper teaches the limitations of claim 22. The reference clearly teaches that hydrogen has a quantifiable function with respect to silicon wafers, and that the amount of hydrogen in the hydrogen-containing dielectric layer is a known result effective variable for ensuring that function (¶0035, 0036, 0048, 0110, 0113, 0148). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the atomic percentage of hydrogen in the hydrogen-containing dielectric material in order to achieve optimize the passivation function. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 8, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moeller as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Moeller teaches the limitations of claim 1. The reference specifically teaches that the hydrogen-containing dielectric layer S1 is permeable to hydrogen (¶0009, 0014). Therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the hydrogen-containing dielectric layer S1 has a second hydrogen permeation rate.
Conversely, the first hydrogen barrier layer S2 is specifically intended to have a lower, first hydrogen permeation rate (Ibid.).
Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the first hydrogen permeation rate with respect to the second hydrogen permeating rate in order to ensure the desired hydrogen permeation occurs during treatment. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 10, Moeller teaches the limitations of claim 1. Moeller teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the first hydrogen barrier layer S2 in order to achieve a total thickness of layers S1, S2 similar to ¼ the average wavelength of the average value of sunlight (¶0016, 0036). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 13, Moeller teaches the limitations of claim 1. Moeller teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of hydrogen in the hydrogen-containing dielectric material in order to achieve the desired passivation properties (¶0014, 0018). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moeller as applied to claim 22 above.
Regarding claim 27, Moeller teaches the limitations of claim 22. Moeller teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of hydrogen in the hydrogen-containing dielectric material in order to achieve the desired passivation properties (¶0014, 0018). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jolywood as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Jolywood teaches the limitations of claim 1. The reference specifically teaches that the hydrogen-containing dielectric layer 15 is permeable to hydrogen (p. 14 of translation: “the hydrogen-rich layer 15 is used to provide hydrogen”). Therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the hydrogen-containing dielectric layer 15 has a second hydrogen permeation rate.
Conversely, the first hydrogen barrier layer 162 is specifically intended to have a lower, first hydrogen permeation rate (p. 15-17).
Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the first hydrogen permeation rate with respect to the second hydrogen permeating rate in order to ensure the desired hydrogen permeation occurs during treatment. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 13, Jolywood teaches the limitations of claim 1. The reference clearly teaches that hydrogen has a quantifiable function with respect to silicon wafers, and that the amount of hydrogen in the hydrogen-containing dielectric layer 162 is a known result effective variable for ensuring that function (p. 16, 17 of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the atomic percentage of hydrogen in the hydrogen-containing dielectric material in order to achieve optimize the passivation function. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jolywood as applied to claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 18, Jolywood teaches the limitations of claim 16. The reference specifically teaches that the hydrogen-containing dielectric layer 15 is permeable to hydrogen (p. 14 of translation: “the hydrogen-rich layer 15 is used to provide hydrogen”). Therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the hydrogen-containing dielectric layer 15 has a second hydrogen permeation rate.
Conversely, the first hydrogen barrier layer 162 and second hydrogen barrier layer 161 are specifically intended to have lower first hydrogen permeation rate and third hydrogen permeation rate, respectively (p. 15-17).
Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the first hydrogen permeation rate with respect to the second and third hydrogen permeation rates in order to ensure the desired hydrogen permeation occurs during treatment. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jolywood as applied to claim 22 above.
Regarding claim 27, Jolywood teaches the limitations of claim 22. The reference clearly teaches that hydrogen has a quantifiable function with respect to silicon wafers, and that the amount of hydrogen in the hydrogen-containing dielectric layer 162 is a known result effective variable for ensuring that function (p. 16, 17 of translation). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the atomic percentage of hydrogen in the hydrogen-containing dielectric material in order to achieve optimize the passivation function. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jolywood as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lӧper.
Regarding claim 17, Jolywood teaches the limitations of claim 16. Jolywood teaches that the second barrier layer 161 comprises silicon (top of p. 15 of translation), but does not teach that layer comprises AlOx. However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the hydrogen barrier layer of AlOx, as Lӧper teaches that AlOx is a suitable alternative material to silicon (¶0155 of Lӧper). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding claim 19, Jolywood teaches the limitations of claim 1. Jolywood teaches that a metal electrode electrically contacts a conductive layer under the second hydrogen barrier layer 161 (p. 14 of translation: “the passivation contact structure can form a good ohmic contact with the metal electrode in the crystalline silicon solar cell”; p. 20: “the square resistance of the P-type single crystal doped layer is 100-150 Ω/sq), but does not teach that the second hydrogen barrier layer has a pinhole density. Lӧper teaches an embodiment of an electrode contact structure in which a similar outer hydrogen barrier layer (12 of Figs. 6C, 6D) has holes, through which an electrode contacts an underlying conductive layer (6, ¶0020, 0108, 0162, 0163, 0172). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form modified-Jolywood with the electrode contact structure taught by Lӧper because they would have an expectation of success. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.). As such, the second hydrogen barrier layer of modified-Jolywood has pinholes.
A skilled artisan would understand that the ability of the electrode to collect current depends on the area of contact or number of points of contact between an electrode the conductive layer. Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the pinhole density in the second hydrogen barrier layer in order to optimize electrical contact. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jolywood as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of US 2013/0247957 to Hashigami.
Regarding claim 24, Jolywood teaches the limitations of claim 22. The reference teaches that the first hydrogen barrier layer 162 is intrinsic amorphous silicon (top of p. 15 of translation), but does not teach that layer is deposited by atomic layer deposition (ALD). Hashigami teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form such a layer by ALD, as it is a known alternative method for forming such layers (¶0030). The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
