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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 18th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 18th, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The 112(b) rejection of claim 8 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections based over Rim et al. are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections over Lee et al. are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 12-13, 15-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20180050020 A) in view of Nakayashiki et al. (US 2010/0059109 A1). Lee is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claims 1 & 22, Lee discloses a back contact solar cell (Fig. 2-5) comprising a semiconductor substrate (Fig. 4, #10), a first doped region (Fig. 4, #34) and a second doped region (Fig. 4, #32) and at least one conductive semiconductor structure (Figs. 3-4, #361), wherein the first doped region and the second doped region are alternately spaced apart on a back surface of the semiconductor substrate (Fig. 4, #32 and #34 alternately spaced), and the conductivity type of the first doped region is opposite to a conductivity of the second doped region (Paragraph 0074), and a conductivity type of the at least one conductive semiconductor structure is opposite to one of the conductivity type of the first doped region and the conductivity type of the second doped region (Paragraph 0075), and an insulation channel is disposed between the first doped region and the second doped region (Fig. 3, #36 – Paragraph 0051 – the barrier region 36 may be formed of a trench), the insulation channel being discontinuous at a localized portion along an extension direction of the insulation channel such that the at least one conductive semiconductor structure is at least partially located between the first doped region and the second doped region at the localized portion at which the insulation channel is discontinuous (Fig. 3, #361 is filling the empty trench at this location such that the insulation channel is discontinuous), and a part of the first doped region and a part of the second doped region are in electrical contact with the at least one conductive semiconductor structure, respectively to form a local leakage point (Paragraph 0005), wherein a remaining part of the first doped region and a remaining part of the second doped region are physically isolated from each other by a remaining portion of the insulating channel (Fig. 3, #32 & #34 are separated by the empty trench #36), wherein a width of a spacing region located between the first doped region and the second doped region is D1 and a width of the at least one conductive semiconductor structure is W and is equal to D1 (Fig. 3, #361 is as thick as the empty trench), wherein the back contact solar cell further comprises a surface passivation layer (Fig. 4, #40 & Paragraph 0052) and an electrode structure (Fig. 4, #42/#44), the surface passivation layer (Fig. 4, #40) is covering the at least one conductive semiconductor structure (Fig. 4, #361).
Lee does not explicitly teach that the distance D4 corresponding to a minimum spacing between the electrode structures and part of the surface passivation layer covering the at least one conductive semiconductor structure is greater than or equal 30 microns and less than or equal to 250 microns.
Nakayashiki et al. discloses that p-type and n-type doped regions are 100-3000 microns and 10 to 500 microns respectively (Fig. 1, W1, W2 & Paragraph 0014) which are separated by an empty trench with a width of 1-50 microns (Paragraph 0016), the trench is additionally covered by a surface passivation layer (Fig. 2, 101-11). Nakayashiki et al. teaches that this results in a configuration regarding the spacing of the empty trench that is preferable for separation adjacent pairs of diffusion regions (Paragraph 0015). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to adopt these precise spatial features for the doping regions of Lee and the empty trench of because Nakayashiki et al. discloses this is a preferred arrangement for separating adjacent pairs of diffusion regions.
In regards to the distance D4, the doped region W2 is 10-500 microns with an electrode provided precisely equidistantly on top of the doped region (analogous to Lee’s electrode placement which is also equidistantly placed on the doped regions), thus 5-250 microns could be considered the distance D4, which would overlap Applicants claimed range of a minimum spacing between the electrode structures and part of the surface passivation layer covering the at least one conductive semiconductor structure is greater than or equal 30 microns and less than or equal to 250 microns.
In view of Claim 7, Lee and Nakayashiki et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Lee teaches each of the first doped region and the second doped region comprises a plurality of strip-shaped doped regions, the plurality of strip-shaped doped regions comprised in the first doped region and the plurality of strip-shaped doped regions comprised in the second doped region are arranged parallel and spaced apart (Fig. 3, #32 & #34); and wherein the at least one conductive semiconductor structure is at least partially located between two adjacent strip-shaped doped regions having opposite conductivity types (Fig. 3, #361).
In view of Claim 9, Lee and Nakayashiki et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 7. Lee discloses D which is the width of 361 when viewed in orthographic projection (Fig. 3, #361), D2 and D3 corresponds to W1 and W2. D1 is equal to D, thus the equation D≤D1+0.5D2+0.5D3 is satisfied.
In view of Claim 12, Lee and Nakayashiki et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Nakayashiki et al. discloses that W3 is 1-50 microns. It’s the Examiner’s position that one of the at least one conductive semiconductor structure covers a substantially small amount of the back surface of the solar cell. In the instant case, the only difference between the prior art and the claims are a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed back contact solar cell, and the claimed back contact solar cell would not perform different than the prior art device, thus the claimed back contact solar cell is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144, IV, A.
In view of Claim 13, Lee and Nakayashiki et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Lee discloses that the back contact solar cell comprises a plurality of conductive semiconductor structures and wherein adjacent conductive semiconductor structures are spaced apart (Fig. 3, #361)
In view of Claim 15, Lee and Nakayashiki et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 13. Less teaches a ratio of a sum of orthographic projection areas of parts of the plurality of the conductive semiconductor structures located between the first doped region and the second doped region on the back surface to an area of the back surface is less than 20% (Paragraph 0081)
In view of Claim 16, Lee and Nakayashiki et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 13. Lee teaches that the plurality of conductive semiconductor structures have equal orthographic projection areas on the back surface (Fig. 3, #361)
In view of Claim 17, Lee and Nakayashiki et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 13. Lee teaches that the plurality of conductive semiconductor structures are distributed on the back surface in a matrix formed and adjacent rows of the plurality of conductive semiconductor structures are staggered from each other (Fig. 3, #361)
In view of Claim 19, Lee and Nakayashiki et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Lee teaches that the at least one conductive semiconductor structure can be the same conductivity type and integrally continuous as the first doped region or second doped region (Paragraph 0075, 0078). Alternatively, see MPEP 2144.04, V, B-C.
In view of Claim 20, Lee and Nakayashiki et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Lee teaches that the first doped region, the second doped region, and the at least one conductive semiconductor structure comprises a doped semiconductor layer located on the back surface of the semiconductor substrate (Paragraph 0075-0076) and the back contact solar cell further comprises a passivation layer located between the semiconductor substrate and the doped semiconductor layer (Fig. 2, #20 & Paragraph 0038).
In view of Claim 21, Lee and Nakayashiki et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 20. Lee teaches that the doped semiconductor layer comprises doped amorphous silicon (Paragraph 0045), and that the passivation layer comprises a tunneling passivation layer (Paragraph 0038)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20180050020 A) in view of Nakayashiki et al. (US 2010/0059109 A1) in view of Soltz et al. (US 2017/0278990 A1). Lee is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 14, Lee et al. and Nakayashiki et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 13. Lee et al. discloses that the back contact solar cell has a quantity of conductive semiconductor structures on the back surface of the solar cell (Figs. 2 & 8) but does not explicitly a quantity of conductive semiconductor structures of greater than or equal to 30 and less than or equal to 8000.
Soltz et al. discloses that diffusion regions may be present in numbers higher than 30 (See Fig. 3, a diffusion region is provided under each contact finger) and that any desirable number of diffusion regions and conductive conduits in any desirable configuration can be provided (Paragraph 0035). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrive a quantity of conductive semiconductor structures greater than 30 in Lee et al. rear contact solar cell as one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that any number of diffusion regions and conductive conduits can be provided if desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, and 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds for rejection being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights