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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/14/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
It is further noted that the PCT/CN2023/109486 reference is to an application directed to an AC unit, such that it is unclear how it is related to the current application. Additionally, no document from Power Technology could be located on the internet with the given title or author. Neither was a document with the given title could be located on the internet. The documents listing Shi-feng Deng as an author were not published in 2021.
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.
Claims 9-17 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.
Claims 9 and 10 recite the limitation “the cell string” in lines 1-2. It is unclear which of the plurality of cell strings is particularly being referenced by the limitation. Clarification is requested.
Claims 9 and 10 recite the limitation “the solar cell shadowed”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because no solar cell was particularly pointed out to be shadowed in claim 1 from which the claim depends upon. Similar deficiency is found in claims 14-16.
Additionally, claim 9 recites “a maximum power point current”, such that the maximum power point current of the solar cell has already been recited in the claim and in claim 1 from which the claim depends upon. It is unclear if the same or different maximum power point current is intended to be recited. Clarification is requested. It is noted this deficiency can also be found in claims 10 and 13-14.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the solar cell” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because no solar cell was particularly pointed out from claim 8 from which the claim depends upon.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the number S of the leakage combined contact structures in the solar cell" in lines 1-2. However, claim 1 from which claim 13 depends upon recites “S” to be “an area of the solar cell” in the last clause, such that it is unclear if the “S” in the claims is being used to reference different variables. Clarification is requested.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the shadowed solar cell.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because no solar cell was particularly pointed out to be shadowed in claim 1 from which the claim depends upon.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the solar cell” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because no solar cell was particularly pointed out from claim 8 from which the claim depends upon. It is further noted that Impp has already been defined in claim 1 from which claim 13 depends upon. Clarification is requested.
Claim 14 recites that Ileakage of the solar cell meets the condition of Ileakage < 8.85 W/VImpp, where Ileakage is a sum of leakage currents of all the leakage combined contact structures within the 4cm * 4cm square range. It is unclear if Ileakage is supposed to be the leakage current of the solar cell or a sum of leakage currents of all the leakage combined contact structures within the 4cm * 4cm square range. Additionally, claim 14 had stated “any 4cm*4cm square range” in line 2 but later refers to “the 4cm*4cm square range”, such that it is unclear which particular 4cm*4cm square range from the “any” is being referenced by the limitation. Clarification is requested.
Claim 14 further recites the limitation “a leakage current of the shadowed solar cell reaches a maximum power point current.” However, the claim already recited “the leakage current of the solar cell” in line 2, such that it is unclear if the same or different leakage current is being referenced by the limitation.
It is noted that all of the deficiencies found in claim 14 can also be found in claims 15 and 16.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the solar cell” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because no solar cell was particularly pointed out from claim 8 from which the claim depends upon.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “in the solar cell, spacing between two adjacent leakage combined contact structures is greater than or equal to 4 cm.” However, claim 1 from which claim 17 depends upon has only recited one leakage combined contact structure in a solar cell, such that it is unclear how there would be two adjacent leakage combined contact structures in a particular solar cell. It is noted the limitation has been interpreted to be directed to adjacent leakage combined contact structures in two adjacent solar cells of the plurality of solar cells recited in claim 8. Clarification is requested.
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) 1-8, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 118367043; see English machine translation).
Regarding claims 1-3, Li discloses a solar cell (see Figure 6), comprising:
a silicon wafer (11);
a first doped layer (12) disposed over the silicon wafer in a stacked manner (see Figure 6); and
a second doped layer (13) disposed over the silicon wafer in a stacked manner (see Figure 6),
wherein the second doped layer has a polarity opposite to the first doped layer ([[0040]), the second doped layer is in a combined contact with the first doped layer in a preset position to form a leakage combined contact structure (14; see, for example, Figure 16), and when a reverse voltage applied to two ends of the solar cell is 17 V or less than 17 V (it is disclosed the reverse bias voltage is between 2V and 9V; [0074]).
Li does not expressly disclose a leakage current per unit length of the leakage combined contact structure is greater than Impp/S/N, wherein Impp is a maximum power point current of the solar cell, S is an area of the solar cell, N is a length of the leakage combined contact structure per unit area in the solar cell, and N is less than or equal to 4.32 cm/cm2 or less than or equal to 3.45 cm/cm2 or less than or equal to 2.59 cm/cm2.
Li further discloses a ratio A, which is the ratio between the transmission resistance heating power P1 of all conductive semiconductor parts 14 in the solar cell and the reverse leakage power P2 of the solar cell ([0041]), such that the ratio is desired to be between 2% and 50% ([0041]). Li also discloses the smaller the value of the ratio A, the lower the risk of hot spots in the solar cell ([0068]), and that the total number of conductive semiconductor parts 14 and swell as the average width of the conductive semiconductor parts affect the value of the ratio A ([0017]).
Therefore, as the transmission resistance heating power P1 corresponding to all conductive semiconductor parts in the solar cell and the ratio A are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting leakage current per unit length of the leaked combined contact structure, the maximum power point current of the solar cell, the area of the solar cell, and the length of the leakage combined contact structure per unit area in the solar cell, as disclosed in paragraph [0017], with said variable P1 and ratio A both changing as the above variables are adjusted, the precise length of the leakage combined contact structure per unit area in the solar cell and the leakage current per unit length of the leakage combined contact structure in relation to Impp/S/N would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed length of the leakage combined contact structure per unit area in the solar cell and the leakage current per unit length of the leakage combined contact structure in relation to Impp/S/N cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the claimed length of the leakage combined contact structure per unit area in the solar cell and the leakage current per unit length of the leakage combined contact structure in relation to Impp/S/N in the apparatus of Li to obtain the desired balance between the transmission resistance heating power P1 corresponding to all conductive semiconductor parts in the solar cell and the ratio A (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 4, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses when the reverse voltage applied to the two ends of the solar cell is 9 V, the leakage current per unit length of the leakage combined contact structure is greater than Impp/S/N (it is disclosed in paragraph [0074] that the reverse bias voltage can be 9V, such that it would satisfy the requirement with the reverse bias voltage).
Regarding claim 5, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses when the reverse voltage applied to the two ends of the solar cell is 6 V, the leakage current per unit length of the leakage combined contact structure is greater than Impp/S/N (it is disclosed in paragraph [0074] that the reverse bias voltage can be 6V, such that it would satisfy the requirement with the reverse bias voltage).
Regarding claim 6, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses being a double-sided solar cell (see Figure 3), wherein the silicon wafer has a first surface and a second surface, which are opposite to each other (see Figure 3);
the first doped layer (12) is disposed over the first surface in a stacked manner (see Figure 3);
the second doped layer (13) is disposed over the second surface in a stacked manner (see Figure 3);
the second doped layer and the first doped layer form a combined contact in a preset position on an edge of the silicon wafer (14), so as to form the leakage combined contact structure (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses being a back-contact solar cell (it is disclosed the first and second doped semiconductor portions are on the same side of the semiconductor substrate, such as the back surface; [0087]), wherein the silicon wafer has a front side and a back side, which are opposite to each other (inherent property of a silicon wafer);
a plurality of first doped layers and a plurality of second doped layers are disposed over the back side in a stacked manner ([0042]);
the plurality of first doped layers and the plurality of second doped layers are alternately arranged in sequence at intervals ([0042]);
there is a gap region between each of the plurality of first doped layer and each of the plurality of second doped layer (see Figure 16);
in a preset position of the gap region, the first doped layer and the second doped layer are in a combined contact to form the leakage combined contact structure (the leakage combined contact structure 14 is in the gap region between the first and second doped layers; see Figure 16).
Regarding claim 8, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a cell assembly, comprising a plurality of solar cells comprising the solar cell according to claim 1 (it is disclosed a photovoltaic module comprising the solar cells of the invention can be provided; [0028]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose when the solar cell is shadowed, heating power of the single leakage combined contact structure in the solar cell is less than 8.85 W.
As the hot spot risk of the solar cell and resistance to burnout under reverse leakage conditions of the solar cell can be modified, among others, by adjusting the ratio A between the heating power P1 and reverse leakage power P2 of the solar cell, as disclosed in paragraph [0008], with said hot spot risk of the solar cell decreasing and resistance to burnout under reverse leakage conditions of the solar cell increasing as the ratio A is adjusted to be between 2% and 50%, the precise heating power of the single leakage combined contact structure in the solar cell would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed heating power of the single leakage combined contact structure in the solar cell cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the claimed heating power of the single leakage combined contact structure in the solar cell in the apparatus of Li to obtain the desired balance between the hot spot risk of the solar cell and resistance to burnout under reverse leakage conditions of the solar cell (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 18, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a photovoltaic system, comprising a cell assembly comprising the cell assembly according to claim 8 (as set forth above).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 118367043; see English machine translation) in view of Kawama et al. (US 5,665,607).
Regarding claim 17, modified Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose in the solar cell, spacing between two adjacent leakage combined contact structures is greater than or equal to 4 cm.
Kawama discloses a practical size for a solar cell is 10 cm * 10 cm (C6/L6-7).
As modified Li is not limited to any specific examples of the size of the solar cell and as a solar cell having a size of 10cm*10cm was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Kawama 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 any appropriate size for the solar cell, including a size of 10 cm * 10 cm in the device of modified Li. 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.
It is noted that for a solar cell having a size of 10 cm* 10 cm, the spacing between two adjacent leakage combined contact structures would be greater than 4 cm because claim 1 has only required one leakage combined contact structure in the solar cell.
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