DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits for 19/224,099, filed 5/30/2025, which is a continuation of 18/768,660, filed 7/10/2024, which claims priority to Chinese application CN202311078019.3, filed 8/25/2023.
Claims 1-19 are pending, and are considered herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0105956 A1: This reference teaches a back contact solar cell with tunneling contact layers.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0284885 A1: This reference teaches a back contact solar cell with tunneling contact layers.
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 16 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.
Claim 16 recites “the first passivation antireflection layer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, because there is no prior recitation of “a first passivation antireflection layer” in Claims 2 or 16. The Examiner recommends amending the limitation to recite “a first passivation antireflection layer.”
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, 3-4, 10-11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Westerberg, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0284896 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Westerberg teaches a solar cell (Fig. 7, paragraphs [0031]-[0055]).
The solar cell of Westerberg comprises a substrate 102 having a first surface (i.e. the bottom surface, as shown in Fig. 7) and a second surface (i.e. the top surface, as shown in Fig. 7) arranged oppositely (paragraph [0033]).
The inset below teaches that the second surface comprising a first region, a second region, and an isolation region located between the first region and the second region.
The inset below teaches that a first tunnel oxide layer 104 (paragraph [0033]), a first doped layer (corresponding to the bottom portion of layer 110, paragraph [0036]), a second tunnel oxide layer 118 (paragraph [0039]), and a second doped layer 125 (paragraph [0044]) are located in the first region and sequentially stacked in a direction away from the substrate 102.
The inset below teaches that the first tunnel oxide layer 122 (paragraph [0042]) and a third doped layer 124 (paragraph [0044]) are located in the second region and sequentially stacked in a direction away from the substrate 102.
The inset below teaches that an isolation structure (i.e. groove) is located in the isolation region.
Westerberg teaches that the P-type and N-type regions on the rear surface of the substrate are isolated from each other (paragraph [0044]).
Therefore, this disclosure teaches that the isolation structure is configured to isolate the first tunnel oxide layer located in the first region from the first tunnel oxide layer located in the second region (i.e. electrically isolate these regions), and the isolation structure is further configured to isolate the first doped layer (corresponding to the bottom portion of layer 110, paragraph [0036]) and the second doped layer 125 located in the first region from the third doped layer 124 located in the second region.
It is noted that “the isolation structure being configured to isolate the first tunnel oxide layer located in the first region from the first tunnel oxide layer located in the second region, and the isolation structure being further configured to isolate the first doped layer and the second doped layer located in the first region from the third doped layer located in the second region” are intended use limitations of the claim.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
PNG
media_image1.png
671
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 3, Westerberg teaches that the substrate 102 is an N-type silicon substrate (paragraph [0033]).
In reference to Claim 4, Westerberg teaches that the first surface (i.e. the bottom surface, as shown in Fig. 7) is a light-receiving surface, and the second surface (i.e. the top surface, as shown in Fig. 7) is a backlight surface (paragraph [0038]).
In reference to Claim 10, Westerberg teaches that the first doped layer (corresponding to the bottom portion of layer 110, which is made from starting polycrystalline layer 106, paragraphs [0034] and [0036]), the second doped layer 125 (which is made from starting polycrystalline layer 120, paragraphs [0042] and [0044]), and the third doped layer 124 (which is made from starting polycrystalline layer 120, paragraphs [0042] and [0044]) are all doped polysilicon layers.
In reference to Claim 11, Westerberg teaches that the first tunnel oxide layer 104 and the second tunnel oxide layer 118 are both tunnel silicon oxide layers (paragraphs [0039] and [0033]).
In reference to Claim 18, the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that, in the second region, the first doped layer 124 is in contact with the first tunnel oxide layer 122.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang, et al. (Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 220 (2021) 110834).
In reference to Claim 1, Wang teaches a solar cell (Fig. 1d, with details given in Fig. 2, described in Section 2).
The solar cell of Wang comprises a substrate having a first surface (i.e. the top surface in Fig. 1d) and a second surface (i.e. the bottom surface in Fig. 1d) arranged oppositely.
The inset below teaches that the second surface comprising a first region, a second region, and an isolation region located between the first region and the second region.
The inset below teaches that the solar cell comprises a first tunnel oxide layer, a first doped layer, a second tunnel oxide layer, and a second doped layer located in the first region and sequentially stacked in a direction away from the substrate.
The inset below teaches that the solar cell comprises the first tunnel oxide layer and a third doped layer located in the second region and sequentially stacked in a direction away from the substrate.
The inset below teaches that the solar cell comprises an isolation structure located in the isolation region.
The inset below teaches that the isolation structure is configured to isolate (i.e. electrically isolate) the first tunnel oxide layer located in the first region from the first tunnel oxide layer located in the second region.
The inset below teaches that the isolation structure is further configured to isolate the first doped layer and the second doped layer located in the first region from the third doped layer located in the second region.
PNG
media_image2.png
680
874
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 2, the inset below teaches that the isolation structure comprises an isolation groove, corresponding to the indicated groove structure filled with silicon nitride.
The inset below teaches that the isolation groove runs through the first tunnel oxide layer, the first doped layer, the second tunnel oxide layer, the second doped layer, and the third doped layer along a first direction, the first direction being perpendicular to a plane where the substrate is located.
PNG
media_image3.png
680
874
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 3, the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that the substrate is an N-type silicon substrate.
In reference to Claim 4, Wang teaches that the first surface (i.e. the top surface, as shown in Fig. 1d) is a light-receiving surface, and the second surface (i.e. the bottom surface, as shown in Fig. 1d) is a backlight surface (Abstract).
In reference to Claim 7, Fig. 3 teaches that a doping concentration of the first doped layer (i.e. the p+-type layer) is less than a doping concentration of the second doped layer (i.e. the n+-type layer).
In reference to Claim 9, Wang wherein thicknesses of the first doped layer, the second doped layer, and the third doped layer all range from 50 nm to 500 nm (i.e. ~250 nm, paragraph 3, column 1, page 6).
In reference to Claim 10, Wang teaches that the first doped layer, the second doped layer, and the third doped layer are all doped polysilicon layers (Fig. 1d).
In reference to Claim 12, Wang teaches that the solar cell further comprises a first passivation antireflection layer formed on a side of the second doped layer and the third doped layer facing away from the substrate, the first passivation antireflection layer covering at least a surface on the side of the second doped layer and the third doped layer facing away from the substrate.
This “passivation/antireflection layer” corresponds to the SiNx layer shown on the back surface in Fig. 1d. This is further described in section 3.1
Wang further teaches that the solar cell comprises a second passivation antireflection layer formed on the first surface of the substrate, corresponding to the SiNx layer shown on the front surface in Fig. 1d. This is further described in section 3.1
In reference to Claim 13, Wang teaches that the material of the first passivation antireflection layer and the second passivation antireflection layer is silicon nitride (Fig. 1d).
In reference to Claim 14, Wang teaches that the solar cell further comprises a first electrode formed on a side of the first passivation antireflection layer located in the first region facing away from the substrate, the first electrode being connected to the second doped layer; and a second electrode formed on a side of the first passivation antireflection layer located in the second region facing away from the substrate, the second electrode being connected to the third doped layer (Fig. 1d, shown in the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above).
In reference to Claim 15, the inset under the rejection of Claim 2 above teaches that the isolation groove has opposing sidewalls, the sidewalls exposing cross-sections of the first tunnel oxide layer, the first doped layer, the second tunnel oxide layer, the second doped layer, and the third doped layer.
In reference to Claim 16, the inset under the rejection of Claim 2 above teaches that the first passivation antireflection layer (i.e. a SiNx layer) covers the isolation groove.
In reference to Claim 17, the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that, in the first region, the second doped layer is in contact with the second tunnel oxide layer.
In reference to Claim 18, the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that, in the second region, the first doped layer is in contact with the first tunnel oxide layer.
In reference to Claims 1 and 5, an alternate interpretation is applied.
In reference to Claim 1, Wang teaches a solar cell (Fig. 1d, with details given in Fig. 2, described in Section 2).
The solar cell of Wang comprises a substrate having a first surface (i.e. the top surface in Fig. 1d) and a second surface (i.e. the bottom surface in Fig. 1d) arranged oppositely.
The inset below teaches that the second surface comprising a first region, a second region, and an isolation region located between the first region and the second region.
The inset below teaches that the solar cell comprises a first tunnel oxide layer, a first doped layer, a second tunnel oxide layer, and a second doped layer located in the first region and sequentially stacked in a direction away from the substrate.
The inset below teaches that the solar cell comprises the first tunnel oxide layer and a third doped layer located in the second region and sequentially stacked in a direction away from the substrate.
The inset below teaches that the solar cell comprises an isolation structure located in the isolation region.
The inset below teaches that the isolation structure is configured to isolate (i.e. electrically isolate) the first tunnel oxide layer located in the first region from the first tunnel oxide layer located in the second region.
The inset below teaches that the isolation structure is further configured to isolate the first doped layer and the second doped layer located in the first region from the third doped layer located in the second region.
PNG
media_image4.png
740
909
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In reference to Claim 5, the inset under the rejection of Claim 1 above teaches that the first doped layer and the second doped layer are N-type doped layers, and the third doped layer is a P-type doped layer.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westerberg, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0284896 A1).
In reference to Claim 8, Westerberg teaches that thickness of the first tunnel oxide layer 104 is 2 nm or less (paragraph [0033]), and that the thickness of the second tunnel oxide layer 118 is 2 nm or less (paragraph [0039]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein thicknesses of the first tunnel oxide layer and the second tunnel oxide layer both range from 1 nm to 2 nm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “from 1 nm to 2 nm” lies within the taught range of 2 nm or less.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, et al. (Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 220 (2021) 110834), in view of Westerberg, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0284896 A1).
In reference to Claim 6, Wang teaches that the p-type dopant is boron and the n-type dopant is phosphorus (Table 1).
However, he does not teach that the first doped layer and the second doped layer are boron-doped layers, and the third doped layer is a phosphorus-doped layer, because he teaches the opposite doping pattern required by Claim 6.
To solve the same problem of providing an interdigitated back contact solar cell with tunnel oxide layers, Westerberg teaches that suitable doping patterns for such solar cells includes N-type substrates with an appropriate pattern of emitters and junction layers (as in Wang), and the opposite doping pattern, which includes a P-type substrate, with all relevant layers having reversed doping to the N-type substrate embodiment (paragraph [0057]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the device of Wang to have each layer having an opposite dopant, based on the disclosure of Westerberg.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 6, wherein the first doped layer and the second doped layer are boron-doped layers, and the third doped layer is a phosphorus-doped layer.
In reference to Claim 8, Wang is silent regarding the thickness of the tunnel oxide layers of his invention. Therefore, he does not explicitly teach the limitations of Claim 8.
To solve the same problem of providing a back contact solar cell with SiOx tunneling layers, Westerberg teaches that suitable thicknesses for these layers are 2 nm or less (paragraph [0033]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have made the SiOx tunneling SiOx layers of Wang to have a thickness of 2 nm or less, based on the teachings of Westerberg.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein thicknesses of the first tunnel oxide layer and the second tunnel oxide layer both range from 1 nm to 2 nm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “from 1 nm to 2 nm” lies within the taught range of 2 nm or less.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westerberg, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0284896 A1), in view of Smith, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0181444 A1).
In reference to Claim 19, Westerberg does not teach a module comprising the solar cell of Claim 1.
To solve the same problem of providing a rear contact solar cell with tunneling layers, Smith teaches that multiple solar cells of this type may be suitably connected in series or parallel arrangements within a module to provide a desired voltage and current (paragraph [0001]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have connected multiple solar cells of Westerberg in series and/or parallel within a module to achieve a module providing a desired voltage and current, as taught by Smith.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 19, of a photovoltaic module, comprising the solar cell according to claim 1.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, et al. (Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 220 (2021) 110834), in view of Smith, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0181444 A1).
In reference to Claim 19, Wang does not teach a module comprising the solar cell of Claim 1.
To solve the same problem of providing a rear contact solar cell with tunneling layers, Smith teaches that multiple solar cells of this type may be suitably connected in series or parallel arrangements within a module to provide a desired voltage and current (paragraph [0001]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have connected multiple solar cells of Wang in series and/or parallel within a module to achieve a module providing a desired voltage and current, as taught by Smith.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 19, of a photovoltaic module, comprising the solar cell according to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights