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 Invention I, Species A, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 6/3/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/3/2026.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Qiu et al. (US 11,450,777).
Regarding claim 1, Qiu discloses a solar cell (see Figure 1), comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (10) comprising a first region (30) and a second region (40), wherein the first region and the second region are located on a same surface of the semiconductor substrate (see Figure 1);
a P-type doped polysilicon layer (30; C2/L22-25), formed at least on the first region (see Figure 1); and
an N-type doped polysilicon layer (40; C2/L22-25), formed at least on the second region (see Figure 1),
wherein at least a portion of the N-type doped polysilicon layer is spaced apart from at least a portion of the P- type doped polysilicon layer (see Figure 1),
wherein a ratio of a refractive index of the N-type doped polysilicon layer to a refractive index of the P-type doped polysilicon layer is greater than or equal to 0.9 and less than or equal to 1.1 (it is disclosed the refractive index of polycrystalline silicon is 3.93 (C12/L45-57), such that the two doped layers are both polysilicon layers (C10/L2-6) and would have a ratio of 1 for the refractive index).
Regarding claim 2, Qiu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses an absolute value of a difference between the refractive index of the P-type doped polysilicon layer and the refractive index of the N-type doped polysilicon layer is less than or equal to 0.1 (the refractive index would be the same, so the difference would be 0).
Regarding claim 7, Qiu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the solar cell further comprises:
a first tunneling passivation layer (20; C8/L45-55) between the P-type doped polysilicon layer and the semiconductor substrate (see Figure 1); and
a second tunneling passivation layer (20; C8/L45-55), wherein at least a portion of the second tunneling passivation layer is between the N-type doped polysilicon layer and the semiconductor substrate (see Figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (US 11,450,777) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 118676224; see English language equivalent US 2025/038053).
Regarding claim 5, Qiu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the solar cell further comprises positive electrodes that are in contact with the P-type doped polysilicon layer (60) and negative electrodes that are in contact with the N-type doped polysilicon layer (60), but the reference does not expressly disclose wherein along a thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate, a depth by which at least a part of the positive electrodes extend into the P-type doped polysilicon layer is greater than or equal to a depth by which at least a part of the negative electrodes extend into the N- type doped polysilicon layer.
Zhang discloses a rear contact solar cell (see Figure 5), wherein along a thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate, a depth by which at least a part of the positive electrodes extend into the P-type doped polysilicon layer is between 0.05 µm to 2 µm ([0074]) and a depth by which at least a part of the negative electrodes extend into the N- type doped polysilicon layer is between 0.05 µm to 2 µm ([0081]).
As Qiu is not limited to any specific examples of the depth of the electrode extension into the doped polysilicon layers and as a suitable depth for electrodes being 0.05 0.05 µm to 2 µm was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Zhang above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable depth, including a depth between 0.05 µm to 2 µm in the device of Qiu. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result, and because the depth would enhance the metallization region to have a large surface area ratio, so that the performance of metal contact between the doped conductive layer and the electrode can be improved while recombination on the surface of the metallization region is suppressed ([0075]).
It is noted that absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected from the finite number of identified, predictable solutions disclosed above, where the depths by which at least a part of the positive and negative electrodes extend into the doped polysilicon layer are equal in the device of modified Qiu, such that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 6, Qiu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the solar cell further comprises positive electrodes that are in contact with the P-type doped polysilicon layer (60) and negative electrodes that are in contact with the N-type doped polysilicon layer (60), but the reference does not expressly disclose wherein, along a thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate:
a depth by which at least a part of the positive electrodes extend into the P-type doped polysilicon layer is greater than or equal to 80 nm and less than or equal to 100 nm; and
a depth by which at least a part of the negative electrodes extend into the N-type doped polysilicon layer is greater than or equal to 50 nm and less than or equal to 80 nm.
Zhang discloses a rear contact solar cell (see Figure 5), wherein along a thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate, a depth by which at least a part of the positive electrodes extend into the P-type doped polysilicon layer is between 0.05 µm to 2 µm ([0074]) and a depth by which at least a part of the negative electrodes extend into the N- type doped polysilicon layer is between 0.05 µm to 2 µm ([0081]).
As Qiu is not limited to any specific examples of the depth of the electrode extension into the doped polysilicon layers and as a suitable depth for electrodes being 0.05 0.05 µm to 2 µm was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Zhang above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a suitable depth, including a depth between 0.05 µm to 2 µm in the device of Qiu. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result, and because the depth would enhance the metallization region to have a large surface area ratio, so that the performance of metal contact between the doped conductive layer and the electrode can be improved while recombination on the surface of the metallization region is suppressed ([0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. 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); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While Zhao et al. (CN 117594669; see English machine translation) discloses having a larger density in the doped silicon layer (103) would lower the possibility that the electrode (104) penetrates through the doped conductive layer (102) to be in contact with the substrate and the mobility of carriers in the doped silicon layer can be enhanced, the reference does not expressly disclose an extinction coefficient (or density or refractive index) of the N-type doped polysilicon layer is greater than an extinction coefficient (or density or refractive index) of the P-type doped polysilicon layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights