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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Claims 10-11 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/4/2026
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I, claims 1-9 and 12-16 in the reply filed on 6/4/2026is acknowledged.
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 1-9 and 12-16 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.
Regarding Claim 1, in lines 4-5, the limitation of “a hydrogenated silicon oxide film” and “a hydrogenated silicon oxynitride film” are cited as a material for the nano dielectric layer, and in line 8-9, the limitation of “the hydrogenated silicon oxide film” and “the hydrogenated silicon oxynitride film” are cited as a material for the hydrogen rich dielectric layer. The limitation of “the hydrogenated silicon oxide film” and “the hydrogenated silicon oxynitride film” corresponds with “a hydrogenated silicon oxide film” and “a hydrogenated silicon oxynitride film” respectively. However, it is unclear how the same hydrogenated silicon oxide film and hydrogenated silicon oxynitride film respectively can be in the nano dielectric layer and the hydrogen rich dielectric layer at the same time.
Claims 2-9, and 12-16 are also rejected since the claims depend on 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US Pub No. 2023/0136715) in view of Meng (US Pub No. 2025/0248133)
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang et al. teaches a passivation film structure with passivation and surface doping [Fig. 2, 0083], comprising
a nano dielectric layer [6, layer 6 can be at least two of silicon oxide and silicon nitride, Fig. 2, 0044, examiner is reading silicon oxide as the nano dielectric layer],
a silicide layer [6, layer 6 can be at least two of silicon oxide and silicon nitride, Fig. 2, 0044, examiner is reading silicon nitride as the silicide layer],
and a dielectric layer [9, Fig. 2, 0042, silicon oxide layer].
As a result, Zhang et al. teaches (silicon oxide)/(silicon nitride)/(silicon oxide)
Zhang et al. is silent on the claim material for the nano dielectric layer and a hydrogen rich dielectric layer.
Meng et al. teaches a solar module with the use of a silicon oxide that is hydrogenated, that provides the benefit of improving passivation performance compared to non-hydrogenated silicon oxide [0033].
Since Zhang et al. teaches the use of silicon oxide passivation layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the silicon oxide layers of Zhang et al. with the hydrogenated silicon oxide of Meng et al. in order to provide improved passivation performance resulting in increased photocurrent density of the solar cell [0033].
Within the combination above, modified Zhang et al. teaches wherein the nano dielectric layer, the silicide layer, and the hydrogen-rich dielectric layer are sequentially laminated on an upper surface of a silicon substrate [1, Fig. 2, 0083]; a material of the nano dielectric layer is a hydrogenated silicon oxide; a material of the silicide layer is a nitrogen-containing silicon film; a material of the hydrogen-rich dielectric layer is selected from a laminated film of one or more of a hydrogenated silicon oxide film.
Regarding Claim 2, within the combination above, modified Zheng et al. teaches wherein a diffusion layer [8, Fig. 2, 0083] on the upper surface of the silicon substrate adjacent to the nano dielectric layer, the diffusion layer is doped with boron or phosphorus element [0109-0110] and silent on a diffusion layer with a thickness of 10 to 1200 nm the diffusion layer is doped with boron or phosphorus element and a phosphorus concentration is 1x1018cm⁻³ to 1x10²¹cm⁻³ and a boron concentration is 5x10¹⁶cm⁻³ to 5x10²⁰cm⁻³.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation film structure, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation film structure are changed, the precise parameters passivation film structure would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “a diffusion layer with a thickness of 10 to 1200 nm the diffusion layer is doped with boron or phosphorus element and a phosphorus concentration is 1x1018cm⁻³ to 1x10²¹cm⁻³ and a boron concentration is 5x10¹⁶cm⁻³ to 5x10²⁰cm⁻³.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation film structure to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 3, within the combination above, modified Zheng et al. is silent on wherein a boron/phosphorus concentration of the silicide layer is 5x1019cm⁻³ to 5x10²¹cm⁻³
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation film structure, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation film structure are changed, the precise parameters passivation film structure would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “a boron/phosphorus concentration of the silicide layer is 5x1019cm⁻³ to 5x10²¹cm⁻³” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation film structure to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 4, within the combination above, modified Zheng et al. is silent on wherein a carbon concentration of the silicide layer is 1x10²¹cm⁻³ to 2x10²²cm⁻³, and/or a nitrogen concentration of the silicide layer is 5x10²¹cm⁻³ to 4x10²²cm⁻³.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation film structure, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation film structure are changed, the precise parameters passivation film structure would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “a carbon concentration of the silicide layer is 1x10²¹cm⁻³ to 2x10²²cm⁻³, and/or a nitrogen concentration of the silicide layer is 5x10²¹cm⁻³ to 4x10²²cm⁻³.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation film structure to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 5, within the combination above, modified Zheng et al. teaches wherein the silicon substrate contains hydrogen element [0010], and silent on a concentration of each element gradually drops from a surface to inside; on the surface of the silicon substrate, a hydrogen concentration is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²¹cm⁻³, a nitrogen concentration is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³, and/or a carbon concentration is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation film structure, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation film structure are changed, the precise parameters passivation film structure would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “a concentration of each element gradually drops from a surface to inside; on the surface of the silicon substrate, a hydrogen concentration is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²¹cm⁻³, a nitrogen concentration is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³, and/or a carbon concentration is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation film structure to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 6, within the combination above, modified Zheng et al. is silent on wherein a hydrogen concentration of the nano dielectric layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³; a hydrogen concentration of the silicide layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³; and a hydrogen concentration of the hydrogen-rich dielectric layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation film structure, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation film structure are changed, the precise parameters passivation film structure would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “a hydrogen concentration of the nano dielectric layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³; a hydrogen concentration of the silicide layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³; and a hydrogen concentration of the hydrogen-rich dielectric layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation film structure to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 7, within the combination above, modified Zheng et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claim; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of modified Zheng et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed properties are inherently possessed by the device of modified Zheng et al. meeting the limitation of “wherein a refractive index of the silicide layer is 1.5 to 3.0.”
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 8, within the combination above, modified Zheng et al. is silent on wherein a transmittance of the nano dielectric layer for a wavelength of above 400nm is greater than 97%, and a transmittance of the silicide layer for the wavelength of above 400nm is greater than 97%.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation film structure, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation film structure are changed, the precise parameters passivation film structure would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “a transmittance of the nano dielectric layer for a wavelength of above 400nm is greater than 97%, and a transmittance of the silicide layer for the wavelength of above 400nm is greater than 97%.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation film structure to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 9, within the combination above, modified Zheng et al. is silent on wherein a thickness of the nano dielectric layer is 1 to 2nm, and a thickness of the silicide layer is greater than or equal to 3nm.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation film structure, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation film structure are changed, the precise parameters passivation film structure would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a thickness of the nano dielectric layer is 1 to 2nm, and a thickness of the silicide layer is greater than or equal to 3nm.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation film structure to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 12, within the combination above, modified Zheng et al. teaches a silicon solar cell, wherein the cell comprises the passivation film structure with passivation and surface doping of claim 1 [Fig. 2, 0083].
Regarding Claim 13, within the combination above, modified Zheng et al. is silent on wherein a hydrogen concentration of the nano dielectric layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³; a hydrogen concentration of the silicide layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³; and a hydrogen concentration of the hydrogen-rich dielectric layer is 1x1019cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation film structure, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation film structure are changed, the precise parameters passivation film structure would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “a hydrogen concentration of the nano dielectric layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³; a hydrogen concentration of the silicide layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³; and a hydrogen concentration of the hydrogen-rich dielectric layer is 1x1019cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation film structure to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 14, within the combination above, modified Zheng et al. is silent on wherein a hydrogen concentration of the nano dielectric layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³; a hydrogen concentration of the silicide layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³; and a hydrogen concentration of the hydrogen-rich dielectric layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation film structure, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation film structure are changed, the precise parameters passivation film structure would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “a hydrogen concentration of the nano dielectric layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³; a hydrogen concentration of the silicide layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³; and a hydrogen concentration of the hydrogen-rich dielectric layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation film structure to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 15, within the combination above, modified Zheng et al. is silent on wherein a hydrogen concentration of the nano dielectric layer is 1x1019cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³; a hydrogen concentration of the silicide layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³; and a hydrogen concentration of the hydrogen-rich dielectric layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation film structure, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation film structure are changed, the precise parameters passivation film structure would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “a hydrogen concentration of the nano dielectric layer is 1x1019cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³; a hydrogen concentration of the silicide layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³; and a hydrogen concentration of the hydrogen-rich dielectric layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation film structure to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 16, within the combination above, modified Zheng et al. is silent on wherein a hydrogen concentration of the nano dielectric layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³; a hydrogen concentration of the silicide layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³; and a hydrogen concentration of the hydrogen-rich dielectric layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation film structure, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation film structure are changed, the precise parameters passivation film structure would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “a hydrogen concentration of the nano dielectric layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³; a hydrogen concentration of the silicide layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³; and a hydrogen concentration of the hydrogen-rich dielectric layer is 1x10¹⁹cm⁻³ to 1x10²²cm⁻³.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation film structure to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (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 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights