DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
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 A1, and Species B1 (claims 1-6, 9-11, and 13-15) in the reply on 07/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-8, 12, and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected Group and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if amended and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 5-6, 9-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN (CN 114267580 A, see English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, CHEN teaches a pre-textured silicon wafer (see the textured single crystal silicon wafer in Figs. 3-8, before preparing the bifacial PERC solar cell) comprising:
a substrate layer (see the single crystal silicon wafer layer) (see Figs. 3-8), and
a pre-textured layer disposed on a surface of at least one side of the substrate layer (see the textured layer on the surface of the top side of the single crystal silicon wafer layer) (see Figs. 3-8),
wherein the pre-textured layer comprises a plurality of protrusions (see the plurality of protrusions in Figs. 3-8), each of the plurality of protrusions is in a shape of a quadrangular frustum pyramid (see the quadrangular frustum pyramid shape of the plurality of protrusions in Figs. 3-8), and a length of a bottom edge of each of the plurality of protrusions ranges from 2 µm to 8 µm ([n0011] The bottom side length of the truncated pyramid top structure is 1～5 micrometers; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected length within the disclosed 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. See 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, I.)).
Regarding claim 5, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
CHEN teaches a height of each of the plurality of protrusions ranges from 0.5 µm to 2 µm ([n0011] the height is 0.3～3 micrometers; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected height within the disclosed 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. See 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, I.)).
Regarding claim 6, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
CHEN teaches a cross-sectional size of the corresponding protrusion gradually decreases in a direction distal from the substrate layer (see Figs. 3-8).
Regarding claim 9, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
CHEN teaches a textured wafer (see the textured single crystal silicon wafer in Figs. 3-8), wherein the textured wafer is prepared from the pre-textured silicon wafer according to claim 1 (Based on the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the limitation “prepared from”, the original material(s) could be changed chemically and/or physically and the final product does not necessarily include the original material(s) after the process of “prepared from”).
Regarding claim 10, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 9.
CHEN teaches the textured wafer comprises the substrate layer (see the single crystal silicon wafer layer) and a textured surface layer disposed on the surface of at least one side of the substrate layer (see the textured layer on the surface of the top side of the single crystal silicon wafer layer) (see Figs. 3-8), the textured surface layer comprises densely arranged light trapping structures (see the densely arrange light trapping structures in Figs. 3-8), and a maximum cross-sectional width of each of the light trapping structures ranges from 1 µm to 4 µm ([n0011] The bottom side length of the truncated pyramid top structure is 1～5 micrometers; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected width within the disclosed 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. See 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, I.)).
Regarding claim 11, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 10.
CHEN teaches each of the light trapping structures is in a shape of a quadrangular pyramid (see the quadrangular frustum pyramid morphology structure) (see Figs. 3-8); and a maximum cross-sectional size of the light trapping structure gradually decreases in a direction distal from the substrate layer (see Figs. 3-8).
Regarding claim 13, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 10.
CHEN teaches a height of each of the light trapping structures ranges from 1.23 µm to 1.58 µm ([n0011] the height is 0.3～3 micrometers; Given the teachings above, it would have been obvious to have selected height within the disclosed 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. See 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, I.)).
Regarding claim 14, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 10.
CHEN teaches adjacent light trapping structures are arranged such that there is no gap between a bottom edge of a light trapping structure and a bottom edge of a neighboring light trapping structure (see Figs. 3-8).
Regarding claim 15, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 10.
CHEN teaches a solar cell comprising a textured wafer (see the bifacial solar cell with the textured single crystal silicon wafer; see Figs. 3-8 and [n0021] The top surface of this frustum-shaped structure is flat, which facilitates the subsequent deposition of passivation films. The reflectivity is controllable, and the optical and electrical performance of the cell is taken into account. The resulting bifacial solar cells have high back-side efficiency and high bifaciality), wherein the textured wafer is prepared from the pre-textured silicon wafer according to claim 1 (Based on the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the limitation “prepared from”, the original material(s) could be changed chemically and/or physically and the final product does not necessarily include the original material(s) after the process of “prepared from”).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE-SIK KANG whose telephone number is 571-272-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am – 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T. Martin can be reached on 571-270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE-SIK KANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
