DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action regarding application number 19/203,287, filed on 05/09/2025, which is a CON of PCT/CN2025/072690, filed on 01/16/2025, and which claims foreign priority to CN 202411352531.7, filed on 09/26/2024, CN 202422086173.1, filed on 08/27/2024, CN 202411184801.8, filed on 08/27/2024, CN 202410563104.7, filed on 05/08/2024, and CN 202410485399.0, filed on 04/19/2024.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 06/18/2026.
Election of Restricted Inventions
The Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species A1 in the reply is acknowledged.
Claim 8 is withdrawn because it is directed to non-elected Species A3 (Fig. 8).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 8-13, 19, and 20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-7 and 14-18 are examined.
No claim is allowed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the pyramid structures recited in claims 6 and 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 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.
Claims 3, 4, 16, and 17 are rejected because they each recite ambiguous numerical ranges. Each recites two different ranges, and the claims do not clearly indicate which range is required.
Claim 6 recites “a polished surface obtained by polishing a texture with a pyramid structure”. The claim is unclear regarding exactly what form this surface must have. “Polished” implies a process to make smooth, and the specification describes an alkali polish (etch?) process. Is a truncated pyramidal structure required since polishing the top of a pyramid would remove the top vertex? The specification is also unclear, and says “the size of the pyramid base is defined as the average width of the pyramid base graphic” (what is a “base graphic”?). Clarification is requested.
Claim 7 is rejected because it depends on a rejected parent claim.
Claim 17 recites “the first doped layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over QIU (US 2022/0393044 A1).
Regarding claim 1, QIU teaches a solar cell (Fig. 1), comprising
a silicon substrate (10), the silicon substrate comprising a first surface and a second surface that are disposed opposite to each other, the second surface comprising a first region and a second region (first region has the doped layer 22; second region without), a first tunneling and passivation contact structure (layers 21+22) being provided on the first region, a second passivation structure (layers 40 extending across entire rear region) being provided on the first region and the second region, the second passivation structure on the first region being disposed on the first tunneling and passivation contact structure, wherein a height difference between a portion of a surface of the second passivation structure at a side facing away from the silicon substrate on the first region and another portion of the surface of the second passivation structure at the side facing away from the silicon substrate on the second region is 0.01µm to 8µm, and/or a height difference between a portion of a surface of the second passivation structure at a side facing towards the silicon substrate on the first region and another portion of the surface of the second passivation structure at the side facing towards the silicon substrate on the second region is 0.01µm to 8µm (depth of the recesses is 0.01-10 micrometers, para. 25 and claim 14; examiner construes the prior art recesses to be equivalent structurally to the recited surface relationships). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05. Here, the height ranges recited in the claims lie inside the range taught by QIU, and is prima facie obvious as a matter of law.
PNG
media_image1.png
513
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, QIU teaches the solar cell according to claim 1, wherein the second passivation structure on the second region directly contacts with the second surface of the silicon substrate (Fig. 1 illustrates recited relationship), and the first tunneling and passivation contact structure on the first region comprises a tunneling layer (21) and a second doped layer (22) in sequence, a second electrode (50) is disposed on the first region and directly contacts with the second doped layer (Fig. 1 illustrates recited relationship).
Regarding claim 3, QIU teaches the solar cell according to claim 1, wherein the height difference between the portion of the surface of the second passivation structure at the side facing away from the silicon substrate on the first region and the another portion of the surface of the second passivation structure at the side facing away from the silicon substrate on the second region is 0.05µm to 8µm or 3pµm to 6µm;
and/or the height difference between the portion of the surface of the second passivation structure at the side facing towards the silicon substrate on the first region and the another portion of the surface of the second passivation structure at the side facing towards the silicon substrate on the second region is 0.05µm to 8µm or 3µm to 6µm. The height ranges recited in the claims lie inside the range taught by QIU, and is prima facie obvious as a matter of law.
Regarding claim 4, QIU teaches the solar cell according to claim 2, wherein the tunneling layer is any one of a silicon oxide layer and a silicon nitride oxide layer (layer 21 is silicon oxide, para. 95), or any combination thereof; and/or,the tunneling layer has a thickness of 0.5nm to 3nm or 1.5nm to 2.5nm; and/or the second doped layer is a doped polysilicon layer with a thickness of 1nm to 150nm or 50nm to 100nm; and/or the second doped layer has a same doping type as that of the silicon substrate, and the second doped layer has a surface doping concentration of 2E20cm-3 to 3E21cm-3 or 5E20cm-3 to 2E21cm-3.
Regarding claim 5, QIU teaches the solar cell according to claim 1, wherein the silicon substrate is sunken on the second region (Fig. 1 illustrates recited relationship).
Regarding claim 14, QIU teaches the solar cell according to claim 1, wherein the first region comprises a plurality of first sub-regions that are distributed in parallel and equidistantly spaced apart, and the second region comprises a plurality of second sub-regions that are distributed in parallel and equidistantly spaced apart, the first sub-region and the second sub-region are alternately distributed, and the first sub-region has a width of 20µm to 600µm and the second sub-region has a width of 100µm to 800µm (width of the recesses [second regions] can be between 100-600 micrometers, and be spaced 20-500 micrometers, thus the first sub-region widths also have the widths of 20-500 micrometers, para. 25 and claim 14).
Regarding claim 15, QIU teaches the solar cell according to claim 1, wherein the second passivation structure comprises one of a silicon oxide layer, an alumina layer, a silicon nitride layer and a silicon nitride oxide layer, or any combination of two or more thereof (layer 21 is silicon oxide, para. 95; many combinations are also possible based on design criteria--see surrounding paras.).
Regarding claim 16, QIU teaches the solar cell according to claim 15, wherein the second passivation structure comprises a silicon oxide layer, an alumina layer and a silicon nitride layer in sequence, wherein the silicon oxide layer has a thickness of 0.1nm to 3nm, the alumina layer has a thickness of 3nm to 10nm or 4nm to 8nm, and the silicon nitride layer has a thickness of 60nm to 100nm or 70nm to 90nm; or the second passivation structure comprises a silicon oxide layer and a silicon nitride layer in sequence, wherein the silicon oxide layer has a thickness of 1nm to 30nm, and the silicon nitride layer has a thickness of 60nm to 100nm or 70nm to 90nm (silicon oxide containing layer is 0.5-3nm and silicon nitride containing layer is greater than 50nm, paras. 106-107; overlapping ranges prima facie obvious and well-known for this class of passivation layers).
Regarding claim 17, QIU teaches the solar cell according to claim 1, wherein the first doped layer (P-type doped region 22) has an opposite doping type to that of the silicon substrate (N-type), and the first doped layer has a surface doping concentration of 1E18cm-3 to 5E19cm-3 (“concentration of 1E18-1E21 cm-3”, para. 99; overlapping ranges prima facie obvious and well-known), and has a thickness of 10nm to 100nm (0.01-1 micrometer; overlapping ranges prima facie obvious and well-known); and/or
a first passivation structure is disposed on the first doped layer, the first passivation structure comprising an alumina layer and a silicon nitride layer in sequence, wherein the alumina layer has a thickness of 3nm to lOnm or 4nm to 8nm, and the silicon nitride layer has a thickness of 60nm to 100nm or 70nm to 90nm.
Regarding claim 18, QIU teaches the photovoltaic module comprising the solar cell according to claim 1 (“cell assembly”).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The recited subject matter of claims 6 and 7 related to pyramids structures with a size of a pyramid base of the pyramid structure on the first region is smaller than that on the second region are considered to be clear of the prior art.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00µm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner
Prosecution Insights