DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply on 01/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action, and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 11-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites “a platform” in line 1. It is unclear whether the claimed “a platform” is identical to or a different feature from the claimed “a platform” in claim 2. For the purpose of office action, the recitation will be treated as if it recites “the platform”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “the passivation layer” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this office action, the recitation will be treated as if it recites “the back surface passivation layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “the back surface passivation layer” in line 7. It is unclear which antecedent basis Applicant intends for the term “the back surface passivation layer”. Specifically, it is unclear whether this term refers to “a back surface passivation layer” recited in line 2 or to “a back surface passivation layer” recited in line 6. For the purpose of office action, the recitation will be treated as if it refers to “a back surface passivation layer” recited in line 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the multiple “the doped layer” in line 8. It is unclear which antecedent basis Applicant intends for the term “the doped layer”. Specifically, it is unclear whether this term refers to “a doped layer” recited in line 2 or to “a doped layer” recited in line 6. For the purpose of office action, the recitation will be treated as if it refers to “a doped layer” recited in line 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites “the passivation layer” in lines 8-9. It is unclear which antecedent basis Applicant intends for the term “the passivation layer”. Specifically, it is unclear whether this term refers to “a back surface passivation layer” recited in line 2 or to “a back surface passivation layer” recited in line 6. For the purpose of office action, the recitation will be treated as if it refers to “a back surface passivation layer” recited in line 6. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ZHANG (CN 115588698 A, see English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, ZHANG teaches a back contact solar cell (see the back contact solar cell in Fig. 1), comprising:
a silicon substrate (see the silicon substrate 1), having a first surface (see the top surface of the silicon substrate 1), wherein the first surface comprises a first conductive region, a second conductive region, and an insulation region located between the first conductive region and the second conductive region (The top surface of the silicon substrate 1 comprises the first conductive region, the second conductive region, and the insulation region located between the first conductive region and the second conductive region, see Fig. 1 attached below), wherein the first surface is provided with a groove (see the groove in Fig. 1 attached below), wherein the second conductive region corresponds to a bottom of the groove that has a textured structure (The second conductive region corresponds to the bottom of the groove that has the textured structure, see Fig. 1 attached below), and wherein the insulation region corresponds to a side surface of the groove (The insulation region corresponds to the side surface of the groove, see Fig. 1 attached below);
a first transport layer (see the first conductive semiconductor layer 22) located on the first conductive region (see Fig. 1 attached below); and
a second transport layer (see the second conductive semiconductor layer 72) located on the second conductive region (see Fig. 1 attached below), wherein the second transport layer extends from the second conductive region through the insulation region to the first conductive region, and partially covers the first transport layer (see Fig. 1 attached below), wherein a thickness of a first portion (see the thickness of the first portion) of the second transport layer located on the insulation region is greater than a thickness of a second portion (see the thickness of the second portion) of the second transport layer located on the second conductive region (The thickness of the first portion of the second conductive semiconductor layer 72 located on the insulation region is greater than the thickness of the second portion of the second conductive semiconductor layer 72 located on the second conductive region) (see Fig. 1 attached below).
PNG
media_image1.png
344
1104
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
ZHANG teaches the insulation region further comprises a platform (see the platform in Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1) located between the first conductive region and the groove (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 2.
ZHANG teaches the platform has a polished structure (Regarding the recitation “polished”, the recitation is directed to the method of making a product and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims [R-9]. See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Only “the structure(s)” is(are) given patentable weight. Since the claim does not further require a particular shape of structure, the flat structure of the platform is considered to meet the claimed “polished structure” (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1)).
Regarding claim 5, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 2.
ZHANG teaches the first conductive region is parallel to the platform (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 2.
ZHANG teaches the side surface of the groove is inclined relative to the platform (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1), and a cross-sectional area of the groove decreases along a direction from an opening of the groove to the bottom of the groove (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 2.
ZHANG teaches a portion of the side surface of the groove proximate to the first conductive region has a polished surface structure (Regarding the recitation “polished”, the recitation is directed to the method of making a product and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims [R-9]. See also In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Only “the structure(s)” is(are) given patentable weight. Since the claim does not further require a particular shape of structure, the flat structure of a portion of the side surface of the groove is considered to meet the claimed “polished furface structure” (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1)).
Regarding claim 10, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 6.
ZHANG teaches the side surface of the groove and the silicon substrate form an acute angle (see the acute angle between the side surface of the groove and the silicon substrate; see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG (CN 115588698 A, see English Machine Translation) as applied to claims 2.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 2.
Regarding the claimed “wherein a thickness of the second transport layer located on the platform is greater than a thickness of the second transport layer located on the side surface of the groove”, ZHANG disclose the second semiconductor layer may be formed by PECVD [n0127]. One of the ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the film thickness formed by PECVD may be varied based on the angle of the surface from the PECVD source. It would have been obvious to choose the thickness of the second conductive semiconductor layer located on the platform which is greater than the thickness of the second conductive semiconductor layer located on the side surface of the groove from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions for choosing the thickness; the thickness of the second conductive semiconductor layer located on the platform which is greater than the thickness of the second conductive semiconductor layer located on the side surface of the groove, the thickness of the second conductive semiconductor layer located on the platform which is the same as the thickness of the second conductive semiconductor layer located on the side surface of the groove, or the thickness of the second conductive semiconductor layer located on the platform which is smaller than the thickness of the second conductive semiconductor layer located on the side surface of the groove. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale E, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Regarding claim 11, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 2.
Regarding the claimed “wherein a length of a platform on two sides of the groove along an extension direction of the groove is less than or equal to 10 microns”, ZHANG discloses that the area for the first electrode 10 on the first conductive region is approximately the same area for the second electrode 11 on the second conductive region (see Fig. 1 attached in the rejection of claim 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that when the length of a platform is too long, the area for the first electrode decreases. As the area for the first electrode is variable that can be modified by adjusting the length of the platform, the precise length would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed length cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the length of the platform in ZHANG to obtain the proper area for the first electrode (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI (WO 2023050824 A1, see US publication US 20240395960 A1 as an English translation of WO 2023050824 A1 since US 20240395960 A1 corresponds to the application that was the national stage entry of WO 2023050824 A1) in view of ZHANG (CN 115588698 A, see English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 12, regarding the claimed limitations required by claim 1 on which claim 12 depends, LI teaches a back contact solar cell (see the back contact solar cell in Fig. 7), comprising:
a silicon substrate (see the silicon substrate 10; [0057] The material of the substrate 10 may be selected from the materials such as silicon (Si)), having a first surface (see the top surface of the silicon substrate 10), wherein the first surface comprises a first conductive region, a second conductive region, and an insulation region located between the first conductive region and the second conductive region (The top surface of the silicon substrate 10 comprises the first conductive region, the second conductive region, and the insulation region located between the first conductive region and the second conductive region, see Fig. 7 attached below), wherein the first surface is provided with a groove (see the groove in Fig. 7 attached below), wherein the second conductive region corresponds to a bottom of the groove that has a textured structure (The second conductive region corresponds to the bottom of the groove, see Fig. 1 attached below; Regarding the claimed “a textured structure”, LI does not explicitly disclose the claimed feature. However, ZHANG discloses a back contact solar cell, wherein referring to Fig. 1, the region on the first surface corresponding to the position except the gap in the first portion of the second semiconductor layer (corresponding to the claimed “the second conductive region”) has a textured structure, so that the anti-reflection and light absorption effects can be improved [n0094]. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the textured structure in the second conductive region in LI as taught by ZHANG, because the textured structure provides the anti-reflection and light absorption effects), and wherein the insulation region corresponds to a side surface of the groove (The insulation region corresponds to the side surface of the groove, see Fig. 7 attached below);
a first transport layer (see the first interface passivation layer 14 & the first doping layer 11) located on the first conductive region (see Fig. 7 attached below); and
a second transport layer (see the interface passivation film layer 15 & the doping film layer 12) located on the second conductive region (see Fig. 7 attached below), wherein the second transport layer extends from the second conductive region through the insulation region to the first conductive region, and partially covers the first transport layer (see Fig. 7 attached below), wherein a thickness of a first portion (see the thickness of the first portion) of the second transport layer located on the insulation region is greater than a thickness of a second portion (see the thickness of the second portion) of the second transport layer located on the second conductive region (The thickness of the first portion of the interface passivation film layer 15 & the doping film layer 12 located on the insulation region is greater than the thickness of the second portion of the interface passivation film layer 15 & the doping film layer 12 located on the second conductive region) (see Fig. 7 attached below).
PNG
media_image2.png
266
1086
media_image2.png
Greyscale
And, LI teaches the first transport layer comprises a back surface passivation layer (see the first interface passivation layer 14) and a doped layer (see the first doping layer 11) stacked in sequence (see Fig. 7 attached above), wherein the back surface passivation layer is closer to the silicon substrate than the doped layer (see Fig. 7 attached above), the doped layer comprises doped polysilicon ([0059] the first doping layer may be polycrystalline and the materials of the first doping layer can be silicon (Si)), and the passivation layer comprises tunneling silicon oxide ([0075] the materials of the materials of the first interface passivation layer, the second interface passivation layer and the third interface passivation layer can be silicon oxide, which has tunneling property); and the second transport layer comprises a back surface passivation layer (see the interface passivation film layer 15) and a doped layer (see the doping film layer 12) stacked in sequence (see Fig. 7 attached above), wherein the back surface passivation layer is closer to the silicon substrate than the doped layer (see Fig. 7 attached above), the doped layer comprises doped microcrystalline silicon ([0059] the second doping layer may be microcrystalline and the materials of the second doping layer can be silicon (Si)), and the passivation layer comprises intrinsic amorphous silicon ([0075] the materials of the first interface passivation layer, the second interface passivation layer and the third interface passivation layer can be hydrogenated amorphous silicon, which is intrinsic).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE-SIK KANG whose telephone number is 571-272-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am – 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T. Martin can be reached on 571-270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE-SIK KANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728