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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 7-12 and 20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-6 and 13-19 are examined below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 and 13-19, in the reply filed on 5/28/2026 is acknowledged.
The examiner incorrectly identified claim 20 as a device claim. Claim 20 is a method claim dependent on the withdrawn claim 7. Accordingly, claim 20 has been withdrawn in accordance with applicant’s election.
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 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Uniformity is not defined in the claim or the specification. Specifically, it is unclear whether the uniformity is referring to uniformity of coverage across the surface, uniformity from peak height to peak height, uniformity in peak height to the thickness of the layer or uniformity of reflectance.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "the intrinsic amorphous silicon material layer" and “the phosphorus-silicon glass layer” in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation ins the claim. In applicant’s specification, the intrinsic amorphous silicon layer is used to make the n-type doped polycrystalline silicon layer (see applicant’s specification page 5, para [0019]). Accordingly, the limitation will be treated as a product-by-process limitation and given weight to the extent the prior art device is able to be formed by the process recited.
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (CN 114497290) in view of Hitchman (Some Kinetic Consideration of Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) Processes).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a back-contacted solar cell (see abstract), comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (1), wherein the semiconductor substrate has a first surface and a second surface arranged that are opposite to each other (see fig. 13), and
wherein the first surface has a textured structure (shown in fig. 13); and
a tunneling passivation layer (2a or 4a) and an N-type doped polycrystalline silicon layer (2b) that are sequentially stacked on a local region of the second surface in a thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate (shown in fig. 13) (see para [0043]-[0055]).
Lin does not disclose wherein a ratio of a thickness of the N-type doped polycrystalline silicon layer that is located on an edge region of the second surface to a thickness of the N-type doped polycrystalline silicon layer that is located on a central region of the second surface is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 1.2.
Hitchman is analogous art to Lin as Hitchman is directed to deposition of polycrystalline silicon (see pages 1-2). Hitchman discloses wherein a ratio of a thickness of [the N-type doped] polycrystalline silicon layer that is located on an edge region of the [second] surface to a thickness of [the N-type doped] polycrystalline silicon layer that is located on a central region of the [second] surface is within a few percent (see section 17.3.2.1 Introduction, page 1 and 17.3.2.4 Radial thickness uniformity, page 5). Hitchman discloses the radial uniform thickness to overlap the recited ration of greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 1.2 (i.e., within 20%).
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Further, the court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the structure of Lin by the process of controlling the uniformity of the doped polysilicon layer of Hitchman as it is obvious to use a known technique (i.e., as disclosed by Hitchman) to improve similar devices (i.e., the solar cell of Lin).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lin discloses a back-contacted solar cell according to claim 1, wherein a region of the second surface on which that the tunneling passivation layer and the N-type doped polycrystalline silicon layer are not stacked on is a polished surface or a textured structure (shown in fig. 13, see para [n0035]).
Regarding claim 6, Lin discloses a back-contacted solar cell (see abstract), comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (1), wherein the semiconductor substrate has a first surface and a second surface arranged that are opposite to each other (see fig. 13), and
wherein the first surface has a textured structure (shown in fig. 13); and
a tunneling passivation layer (2a or 4a) and an N-type doped polycrystalline silicon layer (2b) that are sequentially stacked on a local region of the second surface in a thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate (shown in fig. 13) (see para [0043]-[0055]).
Lin does not disclose wherein a ratio of a thickness of the N-type doped polycrystalline silicon layer that is located on an edge region of the second surface to a thickness of the N-type doped polycrystalline silicon layer that is located on a central region of the second surface is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 1.2.
Hitchman is analogous art to Lin as Hitchman is directed to deposition of polycrystalline silicon (see pages 1-2). Hitchman discloses wherein a ratio of a thickness of [the N-type doped] polycrystalline silicon layer that is located on an edge region of the [second] surface to a thickness of [the N-type doped] polycrystalline silicon layer that is located on a central region of the [second] surface is within a few percent (see section 17.3.2.1 Introduction, page 1 and 17.3.2.4 Radial thickness uniformity, page 5). Hitchman discloses the radial uniform thickness to overlap the recited ration of greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 1.2 (i.e., within 20%).
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Further, the court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the structure of Lin by the process of controlling the uniformity of the doped polysilicon layer of Hitchman as it is obvious to use a known technique (i.e., as disclosed by Hitchman) to improve similar devices (i.e., the solar cell of Lin).
Lin does not disclose the back-contacted solar cell is part of a module. The assembly of a solar cell into a module is a well-known expedient in the art (see MPEP § 2144.03). The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements (i.e., the solar cell of modified Lin and assembly into a module) according to known methods (i.e., known in the art), wherein the results a predictable (i.e., a photovoltaic module converting photons to current).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lin discloses a photovoltaic module according to claim 6.
The limitation wherein an average thickness of the intrinsic amorphous silicon material layer is H1, an average thickness of the phosphorus-silicon glass layer is H2, an average thickness of the N-type doped polycrystalline silicon material layer is H3, and 40% of H2 < H1-H3 <60% of H2 is a product-by-process limitation and is given weight to the extent that the prior art is able to be formed by the process recited. It is the examiner’s position that modified Lin is able to be performed by the process recited.
Regarding claim 16, modified Lin discloses a photovoltaic module according to claim 6, wherein a region of the second surface on which that the tunneling passivation layer and the N-type doped polycrystalline silicon layer are not stacked on is a polished surface or a textured structure (shown in fig. 13, see para [n0035]).
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. and Hitchman as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 113817472).
Regarding claim 2 and 15, modified Lin discloses a back-contacted solar cell according to claim 1 and a photovoltaic module of claim 6, but does not disclose wherein uniformity of the textured structure of the first surface is greater than or equal to 85% and less than 100%.
Li is analogous art to Lin as Li discloses textured surface of polysilicon solar cells (see abstract). Li defines size of texture and uniformity as separate measures (see para [0003], i.e., textured surface size and uniformity). Li optimizes uniformity, i.e. microstructure textured with good uniformity (see para [0005]), by using and additive (see para [0016], [n0024], [0037]). Although the prior art does not specify the percentage of uniformity, the prior art does disclose optimization of the uniformity to increase reflection reduction (see para [0005]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the texture of Lin to be between 85 to 100% as improvement in reflectivity improves the reduction of reflectivity. The court has held "where 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) (See also MPEP § 2144.05).
Claims 4, 13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. and Hitchman as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0217907).
Regarding claims 4, 13, 17 and 18 modified Lin discloses a back-contacted solar cell according to claims 1 and 6, but does not disclose wherein the thickness of the N-type doped polycrystalline silicon layer that is located on the edge region of the second surface is greater than or equal to 175 nm and less than or equal to 225 nm (claims 4 and 17); and/or the thickness of the N-type doped polycrystalline silicon layer that is located on the central region of the second surface is greater than or equal to 150 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm (claim 4, 13 and 18).
Chen is analogous art to modified Lin as Chen discloses a silicon solar cell comprising a doped polycrystalline layer on the back side formed over a tunnel layer (see para [0375], [0380]-[0381]). Chen discloses the thickness of the back doped polycrystalline silicon layer to be 200 nm (see para [0381]). See obvious discussion for claim 1 and 6 regarding thickness of edge to center as disclosed by Hitchman.
The Court has held "when, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)). See also MPEP § 2131.03.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the back doped polycrystalline layer of Lin to be 200 nm as the court has held it would be obvious to a person to combine prior art elements (i.e., thickness of the back doped polysilicon layer deposited over a tunnel layer) according to known methods (i.e., as disclosed by Chen), wherein the result is predictable.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. and Hitchman as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2011/0120536).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, modified Lin discloses a back-contacted solar cell according to claims 1 and 6, but does not disclose wherein an average doping concentration of the N-type doped polycrystalline silicon layer is greater than or equal to 3.5 x 1020/cm3 and less than or equal to 4.0 x 1020/cm3.
Wang is analogous art to Lin as Wang is directed to doped n-type polysilicon layers in a solar cell. Wang discloses the concentration of the n-type doped polycrystalline silicon layer is between about 1020 atoms per cubic centimeter and about 1021 atoms per cubic centimeter (see para [0059]).
The court has held 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). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the concentration of the polycrystalline layer of Lin to overlap the limitation of concentration to be greater than or equal to 3.5 x 1020/cm3 and less than or equal to 4.0 x 1020/cm3, as the court has held it would be obvious to a person to combine prior art elements (i.e., doping concentration as disclosed by Wang) according to known methods (i.e., as disclosed by Wang), wherein the result is predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights