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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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.
Claims 1, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and 102(b) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2019/0019901).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a photovoltaic cell (see para [0025]), comprising:
a cell body (shown in fig. 2, see para [0025], i.e., semiconductor),
wherein at least one surface of the cell body comprises a first region and a second region that are not overlapped with each other (shown in fig. 2),
wherein the first region has a textured structure, and wherein the textured structure comprises one or more of pyramid or inverted pyramid structures (see para [0027]), and
wherein the second region comprises a plurality of pits (surface indentations) (see para [0028]-[0029]).
Examiner notes that the second region comprising pits also comprises texture. The term comprising is open-ended and the structure may contain features not claimed. See MPEP § 2111.03. The first region (texture only) and the second region (pits and texture) do not overlap.
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses a photovoltaic cell according to any one of claim 1, wherein the pits comprise any one or more of round holes, rectangular holes or irregular shapes (i.e. circular, shape of inverted dome, which reads on round) (see para [0028]).
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses a photovoltaic cell according to claim 7, further comprising a passivation layer disposed on 1) the textured structure as well as 2) bottom surfaces and sidewalls of the pits (see para [0009] and [0034], wherein the process forming the pits forms a passivation layer, thereby the passivation layer is on the surface as well as the bottom surfaces and sidewalls of the pits).
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.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further as follows.
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses a photovoltaic cell according to claim 1, wherein a projection size of each of the pits on the surface of the cell body is 10nm to 10 microns (which overlaps the recited range of 0.5 to 100 microns) (see para [0030]).
The court has held 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) (see MPEP 2144.05).
The examiner has elected to not examine optional limitations.
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses a photovoltaic cell according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of pits are distributed in an array on the surface of the cell body (shown in fig. 2); and
spacing of indentations may be between 10 nm to 10 microns, which overlaps a space between adjacent pits is greater than or equal to 0 microns, and less than or equal to 300 microns (see para [0030]).
The court has held 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) (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses a photovoltaic cell according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a ratio of the projection area of the pits on the surface of the cell body to a surface area of the cell body is 0.4 to 0.95.
Li discloses the indentations and spacing are optimized based on the wavelength desired to be reflected and the wavelength desired to be absorbed (see para [0005] [0027], [0029] and [0030]). Therefore, the size and spacing, which determine the ratio of pit area to surface are is a result effective variable.
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses a photovoltaic cell according to any one of claim 1, wherein a depth of each of the pits is 10 nm to 10 microns (see para [0030]), which overlaps the recited range of greater than or equal to 0.1 microns.
The court has held 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) (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 7, 11-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carlson et al. (US 2018/0366597).
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses a photovoltaic cell according to claim 1, but does not disclose the cell further comprises: a silicon wafer substrate, wherein the silicon wafer substrate has a thickness between 50 and 150 microns.
Carlson is analogous art to Li as Carlson is directed to solar cells (see abstract). Carlson discloses a photovoltaic cell wherein the wafer is silicon with a thickness of 1 mm of less as a suitable material for a solar cell (see para [0050]).
One millimeter or less overlaps the recited range. The court has held 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) (see MPEP 2144.05).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the semiconductor cell body of Li to be a formed from a silicon wafer with a thickness as recited as the Courts have held that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to select 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).
Regarding claim 11, Li as modified by Carlson in claim 7, discloses a photovoltaic cell according to claim 1, and
further discloses wherein the photovoltaic cell is a photovoltaic cell with single-sided electrodes (i.e., IBC, see Carlson para [0003] and [0070]), and wherein the cell body comprises:
a silicon wafer substrate (160) (see para [0050]);
a first passivation layer (170) and a first functional layer (anti-reflection layer 180) arranged on a side of the silicon wafer substrate (see para [0049], [0055]-[0056], [0088]); and
a second passivation layer and a second functional layer (200), (see para [0079], with back contact can have an additional passivation layer, reading on a second functional layer, i.e. “an additional passivation layer which permits charge carrier transport may be applied directly to the surface of the silicon prior to application of the carrier selective material. Such passivation layers may be insulators in which case charge transport may occur via quantum mechanical tunneling. Non-limiting examples of such layers include silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide, and silicon nitride. Alternatively, the passivation layer may exhibit semiconductive charge transport. Non-limiting examples of such layers include intrinsic hydrogenated amorphous silicon, and intrinsic hydrogenated amorphous silicon carbide”. para [0079]).
a first electrode (268 deposited on 262) and a second electrode (268 deposited on 261) arranged on the other side of the silicon wafer substrate (shown in fig 8B) (see para [0089]-[0090]).
As Li discloses optoelectronics with a textured surface comprising pits to enhance light capture that includes solar cells (see para [0025]), the benefit to solar cells is non-limiting.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person to modify the structure of the solar cell of Li with that of Carlson, applying the texture surface with pits of Li for the texture surface of Carlson, because the addition of pits enhances light capture.
Regarding claim 12, modified Li discloses a photovoltaic cell according to claim 11, wherein a first collection layer (262) and a first transport layer (conductive transparent oxide, no identifier) are arranged between a third electrode (shown in fig. 8, no identifier) and the second passivation layer (200), the first collection layer is disposed on a side of the second passivation layer facing away from the silicon wafer substrate, and the first transport layer is disposed on a side of the first collection layer facing away from the second passivation layer; and
wherein a second collection layer (261) and a second transport layer are arranged between a fourth electrode and the second passivation layer (200), the second collection layer is disposed on the side of the second passivation layer facing away from the silicon wafer substrate, and the second transport layer is disposed on a side of the second collection layer facing away from the second passivation layer (shown in fig. 8B, see para [0066]-[0070], [0074]-[0075], [0089]-[0090]).
The court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See also MPEP § 2144.04.
Regarding claim 19, modified Li discloses a photovoltaic cell according to claim 7, wherein: the cell body has a first surface and a second surface, the first region and the second region being in the first surface, the first surface having a first edge and a second edge (shown in fig. 2 and 8, see para [0025]-[0029]),
wherein a length of the first edge is L1, a length of the second edge is L2, L1>L2 (this limitation is inherent to the cell of Li, see MPEP § 2112);
a region without the plurality of pits is an edge region, the edge region including a first edge region along the first edge and a second edge region along the second edge (shown in fig. 2); and
a width of the first edge region is A (inherent, see MPEP § 2112), and a thickness of the silicon wafer substrate is B (inherent, see MPEP § 2112).
Modified Li does not disclose wherein 0.05 < A/B < 40. As modified Li discloses the features, a ratio of the features are inherent. As to the specific ration, the court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize ranges for variables and therefore ratios of those variable ranges as the court has held differences in a variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such variable is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. and Carlson et al. as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Ozaki et al. (US 2005/0221613).
Regarding claim 8, modified Li discloses a photovoltaic cell according to claim 7, but does not disclose the cell further comprises:
a first electrode arranged on a side of the silicon wafer substrate,
wherein the first electrode being at least partially disposed on the textured structure.
Ozaki is analogous art to modified Li as Ozaki discloses a silicon solar cell as that disclosed by Li modified by Carlson (see Ozaki para [0053]).
Ozaki discloses a first electrode arranged on a front side of a silicon wafer (shown in fig. 2), (see para [0052]-[0058]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the photovoltaic cell of Li to incorporate the electrodes of Ozaki as electrodes function to remove the current from the cell.
As Li modified by Ozaki discloses the electrode on the front surface of the cell, wherein the front surface of Li comprises two regions, one with texture only and one with pits and texture, it is inherent the first electrode is at least partially disposed on the textured surface. See MPEP § 2112.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2019/0019901) in view of Carlson et al. (US 2018/0366597).
Regarding claim 20, Li discloses a photovoltaic cell (see para [0025]), comprising:
a cell body (shown in fig. 2, see para [0025], i.e., semiconductor),
wherein at least one surface of the cell body comprises a first region and a second region that are not overlapped with each other (shown in fig. 2),
wherein the first region has a textured structure, and wherein the textured structure comprises one or more of pyramid or inverted pyramid structures (see para [0027]), and
wherein the second region comprises a plurality of pits (surface indentations) (see para [0028]-[0029]).
Examiner notes that the second region comprising pits also comprises texture. The term comprising is open-ended and the structure may contain features not claimed. See MPEP § 2111.03. The first region (texture only) and the second region (pits and texture) do not overlap.
Li does not disclose the photovoltaic cell as part of a photovoltaic module.
Carlson is analogous art to Li as Carlson is directed to photovoltaic cells (see abstract). Carlson discloses wherein photovoltaic cells are incorporated into modules (see para [0112]-[0113]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the photovoltaic cell of Li by incorporating the cell into a module as disclosed by Carlson as it is a well-known expedient in the art to increase electrical production by incorporating a plurality of solar cells together.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 13-18 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:
The prior art does not disclose:
1) wherein the first electrode of claim 8 comprises a first main grid and a first fine grid, the first main grid being disposed on at least one of the textured structure and the plurality of pits, and the first fine grid being disposed on the textured structure.
2) wherein: a thickness of a part of the passivation layer of claim 10 formed on the sidewalls of the plurality of pits is H1, a thickness of a part of the passivation layer on the bottom surfaces of the plurality of pits is H2, and a thickness of a part of the passivation layer on the first region is H3; 2H2 for at least one position is greater than H1 for at least one position; or H3 for at least one position is greater than H I for at least one position.
3) wherein each of the plurality of pits has a bottom surface and a sidewall surrounding the bottom surface, and at least a part of the sidewall is inclined relative to the bottom surface; wherein a maximum size of an opening of the plurality of pits is W1, a maximum size of the bottom surface of the plurality of pits is W2, and a maximum depth of the plurality of pits is h; and wherein in at least one of the plurality of pits, 0.1 < (W1-W2)/h < 50.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed 7/6/2026 regarding the objection of claim 12 was found persuasive and the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/2026 regarding the rejection over the prior art have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the two distinct morphologies in the two separate examples may not be used together. The examiner disagrees as Li et al. discloses the possible use together specifically, Li discloses “carrying out the etching for a time sufficient to form a textured surface comprising a plurality of surface protrusions and/or indentations on the semiconductor substrate. … The optoelectronic device formed by this method may have any of the characteristics and/or properties set forth in this disclosure.” Li explicitly discloses the use of the protrusions and indentations together. (See Li para [0008], [0027]-[0028]).
Applicant argues that Li only gives examples of the features formed separately. The court has held “[a] reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Therefore, Li may be relied upon for the disclosure of the antireflection features used together.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stern et al. (US 2014/0370643).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 M-F.
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.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights