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/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/2/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 4/2/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are not mutually exclusive. This is not found persuasive the inventions as claimed invention I does not require the particulars of “a top solar cell, which is one of a perovskite solar cell, a donor-acceptor solar cell, a cadmium telluride solar cell, a copper indium gallium selenide solar cell, or a gallium arsenide solar cell; and an intermediate connection layer connected between the bottom solar cell and the top solar cell.” in invention II, and “at least one packaging layer configured to cover a surface of the at least one solar cell string, and at least one cover plate configured to cover a surface of the packaging layer away from the at least one solar cell string.” in invention III.
Invention II does not require the particulars of “at least one packaging layer configured to cover a surface of the at least one solar cell string, and at least one cover plate configured to cover a surface of the packaging layer away from the at least one solar cell string.” in invention III, and invention III does not require the particulars of “a top solar cell, which is one of a perovskite solar cell, a donor-acceptor solar cell, a cadmium telluride solar cell, a copper indium gallium selenide solar cell, or a gallium arsenide solar cell; and an intermediate connection layer connected between the bottom solar cell and the top solar cell.” in invention II.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pub No. 2021/0217907) in view of Yi (US Pub No. 2020/0135944) and Lai (US Pub No. 2014/0166081)
Regarding Claim 1, Chen et al. teaches a solar cell [Fig. 10, 0050], comprising:
a substrate [1, Fig. 10, 0052], wherein a first surface of the substrate is divided as a plurality of metallization regions and non-metallization regions in an alternating arrangement; wherein the metallization regions each have a first texture structure, the first texture structure includes a first recess, the non-metallization regions each have a second texture structure, the second texture structure includes a second recess [see annotated figure below].
The rectangles are the metallization regions, and the circles are the non-metallization regions. The triangle inside the rectangles are the first recesses, and the triangle in the circles are the second recesses.
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
417
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a tunnel dielectric layer [62, Fig. 10, 0228] arranged on a surface of the first texture structure [Fig. 10];
a doped conductive layer [2, fig. 10, 0088] arranged on a side of the tunnel dielectric layer [62, Fig. 10, 0228] away from the substrate [1, Fig. 10];
Chen et al. is silent on an average one-dimensional size of a bottom surface of the first recess is smaller than an average one-dimensional size of a bottom surface of the second recess; and wherein the metallization region includes first regions and second regions, the first regions are arranged at intervals along a first direction, the second regions are connected between adjacent first regions,
and the second regions are arranged at intervals along a second direction, and an included angle is formed between the first direction and the second direction;
at least one first electrode comprising a plurality of finger electrodes, wherein the finger
electrodes are arranged on a side of the doped conductive layer away from the tunnel dielectric
layer and electrically connected to the doped conductive layer, wherein the finger electrodes are
arranged at intervals along the first direction and correspond to the first regions.
Yi et al. teaches in figure 2d and Figure 4 a surface of substrate comprising two different sets of roughness with the area of 17 [0009, 0049] being deeper than the roughness of the area of 12 [0009, 0044] in a solar cell used to provide improved Jsc, Voc, and efficiency [0020].
Since Chen et al. teaches a roughened surface similar to Yi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the first region of Chen et al. with the roughness area 12 of Yi et al. and the second region of Chen with the roughness area 17 of Yi et al. in order to provide a solar cell with improved Jsc, Voc, and efficiency [0020].
Lai et al. teaches wherein a metallization region includes first regions and second regions, the first regions are arranged at intervals along a first direction, the second regions are connected between adjacent first regions [see annotated figure],
The lines are the first regions and the arrows are the second regions
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
747
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and the second regions are arranged at intervals along a second direction, and an included angle is formed between the first direction and the second direction [see annotate figure, the first and second regions intersect resulting in an angle at the intersection];
at least one first electrode [61 and 64, Fig. 3, 0039] comprising a plurality of finger electrodes [64, Fig. 3, 0039], wherein the finger electrodes are arranged on a side of a doped conductive layer [130, Fig. 2, 0060] wherein the finger electrodes are arranged at intervals along the first direction and correspond to the first regions [Fig. 2].
Since Chen et al. teaches a first electrode 56 is similar to the 61 of Lai et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify electrode 56 of Chen et al. with the first electrode of Lai et al. as shown in figure 2 in order to provide a solar cell with higher efficiency [0045].
Within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches at least one first electrode [Lai: 61 and 64, Fig. 3, 0039] comprising a plurality of finger electrodes [Lai: 64, Fig. 3, 0039], wherein the finger electrodes are arranged on a side of the doped conductive layer [2, fig. 10, 0088] away from the tunnel dielectric layer [62, Fig. 10, 0228] and electrically connected to the doped conductive layer [2, fig. 10, 0088], wherein the finger electrodes [Lai: 64, Fig. 3, 0039] are arranged at intervals along the first direction and correspond to the first regions [Lai: Fig. 3].
Regarding Claim 2, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. is silent on wherein the average one-dimensional size of the bottom surface of the first recess ranges from 5 µm to 10 µm; and a depth of the first recess ranges from 0.05 µm to 2 µm.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the solar cell, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the solar cell are changed, the precise parameters of the solar cell 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 the average one-dimensional size of the bottom surface of the first recess ranges from 5 µm to 10 µm; and a depth of the first recess ranges from 0.05 µm to 2 µm.” 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 solar cell 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 Chen et al. is silent on wherein the average one-dimensional size of the bottom surface of the second recess ranges from 10 µm to 25 µm; and a depth of the second recess ranges from 0.05 µm to 2 µm.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the solar cell, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the solar cell are changed, the precise parameters of the solar cell 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 the average one-dimensional size of the bottom surface of the second recess ranges from 10 µm to 25 µm; and a depth of the second recess ranges from 0.05 µm to 2 µm.” 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 solar cell 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 Chen et al. teaches wherein in the first texture structure, at least part of projections of bottoms of at least two first recesses in a thickness direction of the substrate overlap with or abut against each other [Fig. 10, 0050].
Regarding Claim 5, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches wherein in the second texture structure, at least part of projections of bottoms of at least two second recesses in a thickness direction of the substrate overlap with or abut against each other [Fig. 10, 0050].
Regarding Claim 6, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches wherein the at least one first electrode further comprises a plurality of bus electrodes, and the bus electrodes are arranged on sides of the finger electrodes away from the doped conductive layer and electrically connected to the finger electrodes; and the bus electrodes are arranged at intervals along the second direction and correspond to the second regions [Fig. 10, see rejection of claim 1, Lai: 61 and 64, Fig. 3, 0039]
Regarding Claim 7, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches wherein a top surface of the metallization region protrudes outward relative to a top surface of the non-metallization region in the thickness direction of the substrate [Fig. 10, 0050].
Regarding Claim 8, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. is silent on wherein in the thickness direction of the substrate, a height difference between a top surface of the metallization region and a top surface of the non-metallization region ranges from 1 µm to 10 µm.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the solar cell, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the solar cell are changed, the precise parameters of the solar cell 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 in the thickness direction of the substrate, a height difference between a top surface of the metallization region and a top surface of the non-metallization region ranges from 1 µm to 10 µm.” 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 solar cell 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 Chen et al. teaches wherein the first surface further includes transition regions [Lai: see area between the electrodes in figure 3], the transition regions are connected between the metallization regions and the adjacent non- metallization regions [Lai: Fig. 3], and the transition regions are provided with holes [Lai: Fig. 3]; and silent on a diameter of each of the holes ranges from 0.5 µm to 5 µm; a depth of each of the holes ranges from 0.5 µm to 2 µm.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the solar cell, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the solar cell are changed, the precise parameters of the solar cell 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 diameter of each of the holes ranges from 0.5 µm to 5 µm; a depth of each of the holes ranges from 0.5 µm to 2 µm.” 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 solar cell 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 10, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches wherein the transition regions are arranged obliquely relative to the metallization regions and the non-metallization regions [Lai: Fig. 3].
Regarding Claim 11, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. is silent on wherein a sectional shape of the first recess and/or the second recess is one or more of a diamond shape, a square shape, or a trapezoid shape.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the solar cell, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the solar cell are changed, the precise parameters of the solar cell 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 sectional shape of the first recess and/or the second recess is one or more of a diamond shape, a square shape, or a trapezoid shape.” 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 solar cell 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 Chen et al. teaches further comprising a first passivation layer [46, fig. 10, 0214] arranged on a side of the doped conductive layer [2, fig. 10, 0088] away from the tunnel dielectric layer [62, Fig. 10, 0228] and on a surface of the second texture structure [Fig. 10].
Regarding Claim 13, within the combination above, modified Chen et al. teaches wherein the first passivation layer further includes third regions and fourth regions, and the third regions are provided with a first passivation sub-layer [Fig. 10, see different areas for the third and fourth regions].
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