DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 6/3/2026 is 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 1-12 and 20 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the second surface comprises first regions”, and thereafter recites “the first region”. It is unclear which of the first regions is being referred to. Claims 2-12 and 20 are rejected based on their dependence of claim 1, or the inclusion of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “wherein a projection of the tunneling passivation contact structure on the second surface of the silicon substrate is located within the first region” and also recites “a second electrode disposed in the second and in contact with the third doped layer”. Figure 5a of the instant drawings describes regions S21, identified in the instant specification as first regions, and regions S22, identified in the instant specification as second regions. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand, based on a comparison of instant Figure 1 and Figure 5a, that “a projection of the tunneling passivation contact structure on the second surface of the silicon substrate is located within the first region” encompasses an interpretation that the lateral (left-right) extend of the contact structure at least partially overlaps with the regions S21. The specification identifies elements 42, labeled in Figure 1, as second electrodes. A skilled artisan would not understand elements 42 to extend into the second region S22. Therefore the limitation “a second electrode disposed in the second region and in contact with the third layer” cannot be understood in light of the instant disclosure. Claims 2-12 and 20 are rejected based on their dependence of claim 1, or the inclusion of the limitations of claim 1.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2024/0429326 to Zhang (included in Applicant’s 6/3/2026 IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 11, Zhang teaches a solar cell (Fig. 2) comprising
A silicon substrate 1 comprising a first surface (facing top of page in Fig. 2) and a second surface arranged opposite to the first surface (facing bottom of page, ¶0005, 0060), wherein the second surface comprises first regions and second regions that are alternately arranged (see Marked-up Fig. 2 below)
A tunneling passivation contact structure (see specific components discussed hereafter) disposed on the second surface, wherein a projection of the tunneling passivation contact structure on the second surface of the silicon substrate 1 is located within the first region, and wherein the tunneling passivation contact structure comprises a tunneling layer 2 in direct contact with the silicon substrate 1 (¶0066), a second doped layer 3 disposed on the tunneling layer 2 (¶0070-0074), and a blocking layer 4 and a third doped layer 5 that are sequentially disposed on the second doped layer (¶0061, 0062)
A second electrode 7 disposed in the first region and in contact with the third doped layer 5.
PNG
media_image1.png
376
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The second doped layer and the third doped layer contain impurities of same conductive type, which is n-type (¶0070: “the first polysilicon layer 3 and/or the second polysilicon layer 5 are formed by phosphorus diffusion doping”). In an embodiment, the silicon substrate 1 also contains n-type impurities (¶0045: “performing phosphorus doping on a surface of a substrate to form a diffusion layer with a sheet resistance of 80 to 250 ohm/sq on the surface of the substrate, and sequentially arranging a first silicon oxide layer, a first polysilicon layer, a second silicon oxide layer and a second polysilicon layer on a surface of the diffusion layer, wherein the first polysilicon layer and/or the second polysilicon layer are formed by phosphorus diffusion doping and high temperature annealing”).
Per claim 6, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 6. The tunneling layer 2 is a silicon oxide layer (¶0071).
Per claim 11, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1. A plurality of first regions are arranged in parallel (all first regions are electrically connected via the layer 3) and a plurality of second regions are arranged in parallel (all second regions are electrically connected via the layer 3), the plurality of first regions and plurality of second regions being alternately arranged (see Marked-up Fig. 2 above). The second electrode comprises a plurality of grid lines 7 arranged in parallel (the sides of grid lines 7 as shown in Marked-up Fig. 2 above are parallel; MPEP §2125; ¶0062), the plurality of grid lines 7 corresponding to the plurality of first regions in one-to-one correspondence, and a width of each of the plurality of first regions being greater than or equal to a width of each of the plurality of grid lines.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2024/0162354 to Ingenito.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 6-9, Ingenito teaches a solar cell (Fig. 5, ¶0087-0089) comprising
A silicon substrate 3 comprising a first surface (coincident with border with layer 21) and a second surface (coincident with border with 5) arranged opposite to the first surface, wherein the second surface comprises first regions (underneath elements 15, also shown as 11 in Fig. 1, ¶0062) and second regions (also shown as 17 in Fig. 1) that are alternately arranged
A tunneling passivation contact structure (see specific components discussed hereafter) disposed on the second surface, wherein a projection of the tunneling passivation contact structure on the second surface of the silicon substrate 3 is located within the first region, and wherein the tunneling passivation contact structure comprises a tunneling layer 5 in direct contact with the silicon substrate (¶0065), a second doped layer 7 disposed on the tunneling layer, and a blocking layer 9 (layer 9 acts as an etch stop, ¶0079) and a third doped layer 13 that are sequentially disposed on the second doped layer, the second doped layer, the third layer, and the silicon substrate 3 contain impurities of same conductive type (n-type phosphorus dopants)
A second electrode 15 disposed in the first region and in contact with the third doped layer 13.
Per claim 2, Ingenito teaches the limitations of claim 1. A thickness of the third doped layer 9 (100 nm) is greater than or equal to a thickness of the second doped layer 7 (10 nm; ¶0088).
Per claim 6, Ingenito teaches the limitations of claim 1. The silicon substrate 3 is an N-type silicon substrate, and each of the second doped layer 7 and the third doped layer 9 is an N-type doped polysilicon layer (¶0088).
Per claims 7 and 8, Ingenito teaches the limitations of claim 1. The cell further comprises a first doped layer 23 and a first electrode 27 formed on the first surface of the silicon substrate 3, wherein the first doped layer contains impurities of a conductive type opposite to that of the silicon substrate (Fig. 5, p-type, ¶0089), and the first electrode is in (electrical) contact with the first doped layer (through conductive layer 25).
The first doped layer 23 is a P-type doped layer.
Per claim 9, Ingenito teaches the limitations of claim 1. In an embodiment, the cell further comprises a first doped layer 23 (Fig. 8) and a first electrode 27 formed on the first surface of the silicon substrate 3, wherein the first doped layer contains impurities of a conductive type opposite to that of the silicon substrate (¶0089, 0099, 0100), and the first electrode is in contact with the first doped layer (through tunneling contact with layer 31).
The cell further comprises a first passivation layer 31 (passivation layer 31 is formed similar to layers 5, 9, ¶0100; layers 5, 9 are part of a passivation structure) and a first dielectric layer 29 that are disposed on the first doped layer 23. The first dielectric layer 29 (similar to layer 19) is formed as a silicon nitride layer which improves optical properties (¶0088). Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the layer 19 and therefore first dielectric layer 29, must be inherently light transmissive (Fig. 8). Therefore a skilled artisan would recognize the first dielectric layer 29 as a first anti-reflection layer.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2024/0194800 to Wang.
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-8, Wang teaches a solar cell (Fig. 5, ¶0092) comprising
A silicon substrate 100 (¶0049, 0050) comprising a first surface (coincident with border with layer 150) and a second surface (coincident with border with layer 111/121) arranged opposite to the first surface, wherein the second surface comprises first regions (lateral areas corresponding to stacks 110, similar to regions 10 in Fig. 3) and second regions (lateral areas excluding 110, similar to regions 11) that are alternately arranged (¶0081)
A tunneling passivation contact structure disposed on the second surface (see specific components discussed hereafter), wherein a projection of the tunneling passivation contact structure on the second surface of the silicon substrate 100 is located within the first region, and wherein the tunneling passivation contact structure comprises a tunneling layer 111 in direct contact with the silicon substrate (¶0070, 0079), a second doped layer 112 disposed on the tunneling layer (¶0051, 0061) and a blocking layer 111 (material of the layer 111 is similar to that of layer 112 with blocking properties, ¶0078, 0079) and a third doped layer 112 that are sequentially disposed on the second doped layer, the second doped layer, the third doped layer and the silicon substrate contain impurities of the same conductive type (¶0054)
A second electrode 130 disposed in the first region and in contact with the third doped layer (¶0052).
Per claim 2, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. A thickness of the third doped layer is equal to a thickness of the second doped layer (¶0066, 0092).
Per claims 3 and 4, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. A second passivation layer 121 is in contact with the second surface of the silicon substrate 100 in the second region, and wherein the second passivation layer covers the third doped layer in the first region (Fig. 5, ¶0080).
Per claim 4, the second passivation layer 121 is an aluminum oxide passivation layer in an embodiment (¶0079), and has a range of thicknesses encompassed by the claimed range (¶0074).
Per claim 6, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. In an embodiment, the silicon substrate 100 is an N-type silicon substrate (¶0050), and each of the second doped layer and the third doped layer is an N-type doped polysilicon layer (¶0069).
Per claim 7, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. The cell further comprises a first doped layer 150 and a first electrode 170 formed on the first surface of the silicon substrate 100 (Fig. 5, ¶0107, 0110), wherein the first doped layer contains impurities of a conductive type opposite to that of the silicon substrate, and the first electrode is in contact with the first doped layer.
Per claim 8, in an embodiment the first doped layer 150 is a P-type doped layer (¶0050, 0107).
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches a photovoltaic module (Fig. 9, ¶0112) comprising a plurality of solar cells 101, each of the plurality of solar cells having the limitations of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 over Wang above).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1. A thickness of the third doped layer 5 ranges from 1 to 300 nm, and a thickness of the second doped layer ranges from 10 to 450 nm (¶0066). Therefore the thickness of the third doped layer overlaps the claimed ranges, and the thickness of the second doped layer overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 11. Zhang teaches that the shape of the plurality of first regions are similar to the shape of the plurality of grid lines (¶0012, 0013, 0062). Zhang does not specifically teach a width of each of the plurality of first regions or a width of each of the plurality of grid lines. Wang teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the contact area between similar first regions and grid lines, as well as the surface area of each of the regions and grid lines, in order to reduce contact resistance, recombination loss, and carrier transport (Figs. 3, 4, ¶0026, 0053, 0081).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Such optimization necessarily requires optimization of the width of each of the plurality of first regions and each of the plurality of grid lines, and therefore the claimed ranges are an obvious result of optimization.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingenito as applied to claim 9, and further in view of CN117855295A to Wang II (included in Applicant’s 6/3/2026 IDS, machine translation relied upon herein).
Regarding claim 10, Ingenito teaches the limitations of claim 1. Ingenito teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the first passivation layer 5 as an aluminum oxide passivation layer (¶0059 recites AlONx). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). Further, Ingenito teaches that the thickness of the first passivation layer 5 should be between 0.5 nm and 5 nm (¶0059), a range which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
The first anti-reflection layer 29 is formed as a silicon nitride layer (¶0088). While Ingenito does not specifically teach a range of thickness, Wang teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form such a layer with a thickness of 80 nm (bottom p. 9 of translation). The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Wang II.
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 3. A second silicon nitride layer 140 is disposed on the second passivation layer 121, wherein the second silicon nitride layer is a layered film formed by one silicon nitride layer (¶0104, 0105). While the thickness of second silicon nitride layer 140 is not specifically disclosed, it is recited as having a passivation function, and is similar to layer 160, which also has anti-reflective properties (¶0108). Wang II teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form such a layer with a thickness of 80 nm (bottom p. 9 of translation). The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights