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, Species B, claims 1-13 and 20, in the reply filed on 03/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “32” and "52" in Figure 6 are not consistent with the description in paragraphs [0095] and [0096] of the as-filed specification. 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. 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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 2 and 3 of claim 2 recite “a number of the first conductive structures” while lines 4 and 5 of claim 2 recite “a number of the plurality of second conductive structures,” therefore, for the purposes of consistency, the former recitation will be treated as if it states a number of the plurality of first conductive structures. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3 is 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. Specifically, lines 4 and 5 recite “the first conductive structure” and “the second conductive structure,” respectively, however it is unclear as to which of the previously recited plurality of first and second conductive structures the limitations refer. It is also unclear as to whether the limitations refer to the previously recited “each first conductive structure” and “each second conductive structure” in lines 1-3 of claim 3.
Claims 5-8 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. Specifically, lines 1-3 recite the limitations “the first conductive structure” and “the second conductive structure,” however it is unclear as to which of the previously recited plurality of first and second conductive structures the limitations refer. Claims 6-8 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 5.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN116759465A – cited on 5/21/2025 IDS, hereinafter referred to as CN ‘465, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, CN ‘465 discloses a solar cell ([n0001]) comprising: a silicon substrate ([n0084]; 100 in Figures 4 and 18); a first semiconductor layer ([n0095] - doped conductive layer 120) and a second semiconductor layer ([n0156] – emitter) that are provided on the silicon substrate (120 and 160 in Fig. 18), the first semiconductor layer being doped with an n-type conductive element ([n0095] discloses 120 can be n-type), and the second semiconductor layer being doped with a p-type conductive element ([n0095],[n0156]); a first electrode electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer ([n0096] – 130) through a plurality of first conductive structures ([n0098] - 141); and a second electrode electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer ([n0160] – 180) through a plurality of second conductive structures ([n0160]); wherein a density of the plurality of first conductive structures ([n0129] discloses the material of the first conductive particle may be the same as the material of the first electrode 130, and that the material of the first electrode 130 may be silver) is greater than a density of the plurality of second conductive structures ([n0160] discloses the material of the second eutectic conductive layer 140 includes the material of the second electrode 180 and the material of the emitter; [n0162] discloses the material of the second electrode 180 can be copper; it is noted that silver has a larger density than copper).
Regarding claim 4, CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. CN ‘465 further discloses each first conductive structure and each second conductive structure are shaped as a leaf vein (Figures 5, 8-13, and 17 depict shapes that satisfy the limitation “shaped as a leaf vein).
Regarding claim 5, CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. CN ‘465 further discloses the first conductive structure comprises a plurality of strip-shaped first structures diverging toward the first electrode, and the second conductive structure comprises a plurality of strip-shaped second structures diverging toward the second electrode (141 in relation to 130 in Fig. 13; [n0160], [n0223]).
Regarding claim 6, CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. CN ‘465 further discloses each first structure comprises a first crystalline main chain and a plurality of first crystalline side chains extending in directions different from a direction of the first crystalline main chain, and each second structure comprises a second crystallization main chain and a plurality of second crystallization side chains extending in directions different from a direction of the second crystallization main chain (141 in Fig. 13; [n0101], [n0160], [n0223]).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “growth direction,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 7, CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “wherein the first structure and the second structure are both formed by crystallization and polymerization of a plurality of conductive particles,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 8, CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. CN ‘465 further discloses an element in each conductive particle comprises silver, aluminum or copper ([n0129],[n0138],[n0160],[n0162]).
Regarding claim 12, CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. CN ‘465 further discloses the silicon substrate is an n-type substrate ([n0084]), the second semiconductor layer is provided on a light receiving surface of the silicon substrate (160 in Fig. 18), the first semiconductor layer is provided on a backlight surface of the silicon substrate (120 in Fig. 18), and the solar cell further comprises a first dielectric layer provided between the first semiconductor layer and the silicon substrate (110 in relation to 100 and 120 in Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 20, CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. CN ‘465 further discloses a photovoltaic module comprising the solar cell (Fig. 19; [n0164]).
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.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN116759465A – cited on 5/21/2025 IDS, hereinafter referred to as CN ‘465, see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While CN ‘465 does disclose the conductive particle agglomerates enhance the
conductivity of the eutectic conductive layer, and that this results in smaller contact resistance between the first electrode and the doped conductive layer, reducing contact recombination losses between the first electrode and the doped conductive layer, and improving the first electrode’s ability to collect charge carriers ([n0026]); CN ‘465 does not explicitly disclose wherein in any contact region of 1 mm x 1 mm between the first electrode and the first semiconductor layer, a number of the first conductive structures is in a range from 1 x 105 to 1 x 106; and in any contact region of 1 mm x 1 mm between the second electrode and the second semiconductor layer, a number of the plurality of second conductive structures is in a range of 5 x 104 to 5 x 105.
As the manufacturing cost and operation efficiency are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said number of the conductive structures, with said manufacturing cost and operation efficiency both increasing as the number of the conductive structures is increased, the precise number of conductive structures would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed number of conductive structures cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the number of conductive structures in the apparatus of CN ‘465 to obtain the desired balance between the manufacturing 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, CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While CN ‘465 does disclose the process for forming the second electrode 180 may be the same as the process for forming the first electrode 130 ([n0223]), and further discloses the size of the projection of the first conductive structure on the first semiconductor layer is 200 nm ([n0117]); CN ‘465 does not explicitly disclose a size of a projection of each first conductive structure on the first semiconductor layer is greater than or equal to a size of a projection of each second conductive structure on the second semiconductor layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first and second conductive structures with projections of the same size because CN ‘465 discloses the process for forming the second electrode is the same as the process for forming the first electrode ([n0223]).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was filed to form the projections such that a size of a projection of each first conductive structure on the first semiconductor layer is greater than or equal to a size of a projection of each second conductive structure on the second semiconductor layer because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 4, CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
CN ‘465 further discloses different conductive particle agglomerates 141 can have different shapes ([n0121]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each conductive structure in the shape of a leaf vein because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 5, modified CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. CN ‘465 further discloses the first conductive structure comprises a plurality of strip-shaped first structures diverging toward the first electrode, and the second conductive structure comprises a plurality of strip-shaped second structures diverging toward the second electrode (141 in relation to 130 in Fig. 13; [n0160], [n0223]).
Regarding claim 6, modified CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. CN ‘465 further discloses each first structure comprises a first crystalline main chain and a plurality of first crystalline side chains extending in directions different from a direction of the first crystalline main chain, and each second structure comprises a second crystallization main chain and a plurality of second crystallization side chains extending in directions different from a direction of the second crystallization main chain (141 in Fig. 13; [n0101], [n0160], [n0223]).
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “growth direction,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 7, modified CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
It is noted that with regard to the limitation “wherein the first structure and the second structure are both formed by crystallization and polymerization of a plurality of conductive particles,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the product is made, and it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 8, modified CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. CN ‘465 further discloses an element in each conductive particle comprises silver, aluminum or copper ([n0129],[n0138],[n0160],[n0162]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN116759465A – cited on 5/21/2025 IDS, hereinafter referred to as CN ‘465, see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Shen et al. (US 2023/0387337 A1).
Regarding claim 9, CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
CN ‘465 does not explicitly disclose a doping concentration of the n-type
conductive element in the first semiconductor layer is in a range of 1 x 1020 atoms/cm3 to 1 x 1021 atoms/cm3, and a doping concentration of the p-type conductive element in the second semiconductor layer is in a range from 1 x 1018 atoms/cm3 to 1 x 1020 atoms/cm3.
Shen discloses a TOPCON solar cell ([0051]) and further discloses a doping concentration of the n-type conductive element in the first semiconductor layer is in a range of 1 x 1018 to 9 x 1022 atoms/cm3 ([0097]), and a doping concentration of the p-type conductive element in the second semiconductor layer is in a range of 1 x 1018 to 1 x 1020 atoms/cm3 ([0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the first semiconductor layer of CN ‘465 with an n-type doping concentration in a range of 1 x 1018 to 9 x 1022 atoms/cm3, and form the second semiconductor layer of CN ‘465 with a p-type doping concentration in a range from 1 x 1018 atoms/cm3 to 1 x 1020 atoms/cm3, as disclosed by Shen, because as evidenced by Shen, forming first and second semiconductor layers of a TOPCON solar cell with the disclosed dopant concentration ranges amounts to the use of known components/materials in the art for their intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the first and second semiconductor layers of CN ‘465 with the disclosed dopant concentration ranges based on the teaching of Shen.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of 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 Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN116759465A – cited on 5/21/2025 IDS, hereinafter referred to as CN ‘465, see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kim et al. (US 2016/0181447).
Regarding claim 10, CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
CN ‘465 does not explicitly disclose the first semiconductor layer and the second
semiconductor layer are provided on a backlight surface of the silicon substrate, the first and second semiconductor layers are separated by an isolation region, and the first and second semiconductor layers are arranged in an interdigitated shape.
Kim discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses first and second semiconductor layers (N and P layers in Fig. 3) provided on a back surface of a silicon substrate (100 in Fig. 3; [0036]), the first and second semiconductor layers are separated by an isolation region (122 in Fig. 3 satisfies the limitation “isolation region”), and the first and second semiconductor layers are arranged in an interdigitated shape ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the solar cell of CN ‘465 such that first and second semiconductor layers are provided on a back surface of the silicon substrate, and the first and second semiconductor layers are arranged in an interdigitated shape, as disclosed by Kim, because as evidenced by Kim, the configuration in which first and second semiconductor layers are arranged on the back surface of a substrate of a solar cell is a known configuration in the art, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the solar cell of CN ‘465 such that the first and second semiconductor layers are provided on the back surface of the substrate of the cell based on the teaching of Kim.
Regarding claim 11, modified CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified CN ‘465 further discloses a first dielectric layer provided between the first semiconductor layer and the silicon substrate (Kim – [0035]; 102 in Fig. 3), and a second dielectric layer provided between the second semiconductor layer and the silicon substrate (Kim – [0035]; 102 in Fig. 3).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN116759465A – cited on 5/21/2025 IDS, hereinafter referred to as CN ‘465, see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0217907).
Regarding claim 13, CN ‘465 discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
CN ‘465 does not explicitly disclose a plurality of first semiconductor layers
provided on the backlight surface, wherein each first semiconductor layer is provided on a partial region of the backlight surface, and adjacent two first semiconductor layers are separated by a first separation region.
Chen discloses a solar cell (abstract) and further discloses a plurality of first semiconductor layers provided on the backlight surface (71 in Fig. 10; [0240]), wherein each first semiconductor layer is provided on a partial region of the backlight surface (71 in relation to back surface of 1 in Fig. 10), and adjacent two first semiconductor layers are separated by a first separation region (region between adjacent layers 71 in Fig. 10 satisfy the limitation “separated by a first separation region”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the solar cell of CN ‘465 with a plurality of first semiconductor layers on the back surface with a separation region between adjacent first semiconductor layers, as disclosed by Chen, because as evidenced by Chen, the configuration in which a solar cell is formed with a plurality of first semiconductor layers on a back surface of the cell is a known structural arrangement in the art, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the solar cell of CN ‘465 such that a plurality of first semiconductor layers are provided on the back surface of the cell based on the teaching of Chen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights