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, claims 1-9 and 18-19, in the reply filed on 06/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN-113594296-A, cited on 06/26/2024 IDS – see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a solar cell comprising: a substrate comprising a first surface and a second surface arranged opposite to each other and a plurality of lateral surfaces adjacent to and located between the first surface and the second surface (1 in Fig. 16); a plurality of pyramid base shaped textured structures being constructed on the second surface and each of the lateral surfaces ([0101] line 994; 7 in Fig. 16), wherein each of the pyramid base shaped textured structures has a shape of a truncated pyramid ([0103] line 1037) and has a top surface ([0100] line 984 discloses a flat top).
While Zhang does disclose the textured structure 6 can also be obtained by adjusting the liquid level of the first alkaline cleaning solution 18 and performing the textured treatment only on one side of the n-type silicon wafer 1 in the second direction ([0097] line 943), and further discloses a relationship between the flat top surface area of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the second surface and the passivation effect and contact quality between the electrode and the second direction surface of the n-type silicon wafer ([0102] lines 1015-1027); Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein a minimum side length of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shape textured structures arranged on the lateral surfaces is L1, a maximum side length of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the second surface is L2, and L1 > L2.
As the passivation effect and the contact quality are variables that can be
modified, among others, by adjusting said top surface area, with said passivation effect increasing and contact quality decreasing as the top surface area is increased, the precise top surface area 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 side length relationship 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 relationship between the side lengths (top surface areas) in the apparatus of Zhang to obtain the desired balance between the passivation effect and the contact quality (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).
Further, it is noted that with regard to the limitation “wherein a minimum side length of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shape textured structures arranged on the lateral surfaces is L1, a maximum side length of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the second surface is L2, and L1 > L2,” the as-filed specification describes in paragraph [0072] a NaOH or KOH solution with a concentration of 5% to 20% and an organic complex additive is used for etching, and a temperature in the etching step ranges from 45°C to 90°C. It is further noted that Zhang discloses an alkaline solution to achieve the texturing, and that the alkaline solution can be KOH or NaOH ([0082] lines 721-22). Zhang further discloses a texturing additive which can be any texturing additive that can adjust the lateral and longitudinal corrosion rates of KOH ([0093] lines 874-877; [0104] lines 1046-1056). Additionally, Zhang discloses the volume ratio of water to KOH to texturing additive can be adjusted according to the type of the texturing additive and actual needs, and is not limited to the disclosed ratio ([0094] lines 898-899). Zhang discloses the temperature of the alkaline solution is 77°C to 83°C ([0095] line 907).
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of
either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 4, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Zhang does disclose the diagonal length of the top cross section of the pyramidal protrusion structure may be 1.5 to 4 microns (Zhang - [0127] lines 1316-1317); modified Zhang does not explicitly disclose the maximum side length L2 of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the second surface satisfies: L2 < 15 microns.
As the passivation effect and the contact quality are variables that can be
modified, among others, by adjusting said top surface area, with said passivation effect increasing and contact quality decreasing as the top surface area is increased, the precise top surface area 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 side length relationship 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 relationship between the side lengths (top surface areas) in the apparatus of Zhang to obtain the desired balance between the passivation effect and the contact quality (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 5, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Zhang does disclose the diagonal length of the top cross section of the pyramidal protrusion structure may be 1.5 to 4 microns (Zhang - [0127] lines 1316-1317); modified Zhang does not explicitly disclose any side length L4 of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the second surface satisfies: 7 microns ≤ L4 ≤ 10 microns.
As the passivation effect and the contact quality are variables that can be
modified, among others, by adjusting said top surface area, with said passivation effect increasing and contact quality decreasing as the top surface area is increased, the precise top surface area 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 side length relationship 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 relationship between the side lengths (top surface areas) in the apparatus of Zhang to obtain the desired balance between the passivation effect and the contact quality (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 7, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Zhang further discloses a first passivation film layer stacked on the doped conductive layer (Zhang - 13 on 2 in Fig. 16); and a second passivation film layer stacked on the passivated contact layer (Zhang – 14 on 9 in Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses a solar cell comprising: a substrate comprising a first surface and a second surface arranged opposite to each other and a plurality of lateral surfaces adjacent to and located between the first surface and the second surface (1 in Fig. 16); a plurality of pyramid base shaped textured structures being constructed on the second surface and each of the lateral surfaces ([0101] line 994; 7 in Fig. 16), wherein each of the pyramid base shaped textured structures has a shape of a truncated pyramid ([0103] line 1037) and has a top surface ([0100] line 984 discloses a flat top).
While Zhang does disclose the textured structure 6 can also be obtained by adjusting the liquid level of the first alkaline cleaning solution 18 and performing the textured treatment only on one side of the n-type silicon wafer 1 in the second direction ([0097] line 943), and further discloses a relationship between the flat top surface area of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the second surface and the passivation effect and contact quality between the electrode and the second direction surface of the n-type silicon wafer ([0102] lines 1015-1027); Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein a perimeter of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shape textured structures arranged on the lateral surfaces is C1, a perimeter of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the second surface is C2, and C1 > C2.
As the passivation effect and the contact quality are variables that can be
modified, among others, by adjusting said top surface area, with said passivation effect increasing and contact quality decreasing as the top surface area is increased, the precise top surface area 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 perimeter relationship 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 relationship between the perimeters (top surface areas) in the apparatus of Zhang to obtain the desired balance between the passivation effect and the contact quality (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).
Further, it is noted that with regard to the limitation “wherein a perimeter of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shape textured structures arranged on the lateral surfaces is C1, a perimeter of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the second surface is C2, and C1 > C2,” the as-filed specification describes in paragraph [0072] a NaOH or KOH solution with a concentration of 5% to 20% and an organic complex additive is used for etching, and a temperature in the etching step ranges from 45°C to 90°C. It is further noted that Zhang discloses an alkaline solution to achieve the texturing, and that the alkaline solution can be KOH or NaOH ([0082] lines 721-22). Zhang further discloses a texturing additive which can be any texturing additive that can adjust the lateral and longitudinal corrosion rates of KOH ([0093] lines 874-877; [0104] lines 1046-1056). Additionally, Zhang discloses the volume ratio of water to KOH to texturing additive can be adjusted according to the type of the texturing additive and actual needs, and is not limited to the disclosed ratio ([0094] lines 898-899). Zhang discloses the temperature of the alkaline solution is 77°C to 83°C ([0095] line 907).
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of
either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Zhang further discloses the lateral surfaces extend from the first surface to the second surface (Zhang – 7 in Fig. 16).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN-113594296-A, cited on 06/26/2024 IDS – see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0343404 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Zhang does not explicitly disclose the minimum side length L1 of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the lateral surfaces satisfies: L1 > 15 microns.
Lee discloses a solar cell and further discloses a relationship between texturing process time, the size of the pyramids, and total reflectance ([0117]).
As the manufacturing time and efficiency of operation (total reflectance) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said size of the pyramid base shaped textured structures, with said manufacturing time and operation efficiency both increasing as the pyramid size is increased, the precise size of the pyramid base shaped textured 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 minimum side length L1 of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the lateral surfaces 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 minimum side length L1 of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the lateral surfaces in the apparatus of modified Zhang to obtain the desired balance between the manufacturing time and the operation efficiency (total reflectance) (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, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Zhang does not explicitly disclose any side length L3 of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the lateral surfaces satisfies: 15 microns < L3 ≤ 40 microns.
Lee discloses a solar cell and further discloses a relationship between texturing process time, the size of the pyramids, and total reflectance ([0117]).
As the manufacturing time and efficiency of operation (total reflectance) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said size of the pyramid base shaped textured structures, with said manufacturing time and operation efficiency both increasing as the pyramid size is increased, the precise size of the pyramid base shaped textured 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 side length L3 of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the lateral surfaces 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 side length L3 of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the lateral surfaces in the apparatus of modified Zhang to obtain the desired balance between the manufacturing time and the operation efficiency (total reflectance) (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).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN-113594296-A, cited on 06/26/2024 IDS – see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Albuschies (US 2014/0285224 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Zhang does not explicitly disclose a top end of the pyramid base shaped textured structures is provided with depressions, and a depression depth D of each of the depressions satisfies: 50 nm ≤ D ≤ 1000 nm.
Albuschies discloses a solar cell ([0046]) and further discloses a pyramidal structures with a depression depth of 205 nm ([0150]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the top end of the pyramid base shaped textured structures of modified Zhang with depressions having a depth of 205 nm, as disclosed by Albuschies, because as taught by Albuschies, it is possible to use such a process for surface magnification, which is an important step for enhancing the efficiency of solar cells ([0046]).
Claim 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN-113594296-A, cited on 06/26/2024 IDS – see attached machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sheng (WO 2017197811 A1 – see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 18, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Zhang does not explicitly disclose a photovoltaic module comprising at least one cell string, each of the at least one cell string comprising at least two solar cells.
Sheng discloses a photovoltaic module comprising at least one cell string, each of the at least one cell string comprising at least two solar cells (Sheng – lines 17-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the solar cell of modified Zhang in a photovoltaic module comprising at least one cell string, each of the at least one cell string comprising at least two solar cells, as disclosed by Sheng, because the formation of a photovoltaic module comprising multiple solar cells increases electrical output.
Regarding claim 19, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Zhang further discloses a photovoltaic system comprising the photovoltaic module (Sheng – lines 17-18).
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN-113594296-A, cited on 06/26/2024 IDS – see attached machine translation) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0343404 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a solar cell comprising: a substrate comprising a first surface and a second surface arranged opposite to each other and a plurality of lateral surfaces adjacent to and located between the first surface and the second surface (1 in Fig. 16); a plurality of pyramid base shaped textured structures being constructed on the second surface and each of the lateral surfaces ([0101] line 994; 7 in Fig. 16), wherein each of the pyramid base shaped textured structures has a shape of a truncated pyramid ([0103] line 1037) and has a top surface ([0100] line 984 discloses a flat top).
While Zhang does disclose the textured structure 6 can also be obtained by adjusting the liquid level of the first alkaline cleaning solution 18 and performing the textured treatment only on one side of the n-type silicon wafer 1 in the second direction ([0097] line 943); Zhang does not explicitly disclose a minimum side length of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the lateral surfaces is L1, a maximum side length of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the second surface is L2, and L1 > L2.
Lee discloses a solar cell and further discloses a relationship between texturing process time, the size of the pyramids, and total reflectance ([0117]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the lateral surfaces with a minimum side length which is greater than a maximum side length of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the second surface 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).
Additionally, as the manufacturing time and efficiency of operation (total reflectance) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said size of the pyramid base shaped textured structures, with said manufacturing time and operation efficiency both increasing as the pyramid size is increased, the precise size of the pyramid base shaped textured 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 size of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured 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 size of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures in the apparatus of Zhang to obtain the desired balance between the manufacturing time and the operation efficiency (total reflectance) (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 2, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Zhang does not explicitly disclose the minimum side length L1 of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the lateral surfaces satisfies: L1 > 15 microns.
Lee discloses a solar cell and further discloses a relationship between texturing process time, the size of the pyramids, and total reflectance ([0117]).
As the manufacturing time and efficiency of operation (total reflectance) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said size of the pyramid base shaped textured structures, with said manufacturing time and operation efficiency both increasing as the pyramid size is increased, the precise size of the pyramid base shaped textured 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 minimum side length L1 of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the lateral surfaces 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 minimum side length L1 of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the lateral surfaces in the apparatus of modified Zhang to obtain the desired balance between the manufacturing time and the operation efficiency (total reflectance) (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, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Zhang does not explicitly disclose any side length L3 of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the lateral surfaces satisfies: 15 microns < L3 ≤ 40 microns.
Lee discloses a solar cell and further discloses a relationship between texturing process time, the size of the pyramids, and total reflectance ([0117]).
As the manufacturing time and efficiency of operation (total reflectance) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said size of the pyramid base shaped textured structures, with said manufacturing time and operation efficiency both increasing as the pyramid size is increased, the precise size of the pyramid base shaped textured 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 side length L3 of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the lateral surfaces 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 side length L3 of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the lateral surfaces in the apparatus of modified Zhang to obtain the desired balance between the manufacturing time and the operation efficiency (total reflectance) (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 Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Zhang does not explicitly disclose the maximum side length L2 of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the second surface satisfies: L2 < 15 microns.
Lee discloses a solar cell and further discloses a relationship between texturing process time, the size of the pyramids, and total reflectance ([0117]).
As the manufacturing time and efficiency of operation (total reflectance) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said size of the pyramid base shaped textured structures, with said manufacturing time and operation efficiency both increasing as the pyramid size is increased, the precise size of the pyramid base shaped textured 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 side length L2 of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the second surface 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 side length L2 of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the second surface in the apparatus of modified Zhang to obtain the desired balance between the manufacturing time and the operation efficiency (total reflectance) (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 5, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Zhang does not explicitly disclose any side length L4 of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the second surface satisfies: 7 microns ≤ L4 ≤ 10 microns.
Lee discloses a solar cell and further discloses a relationship between texturing process time, the size of the pyramids, and total reflectance ([0117]).
As the manufacturing time and efficiency of operation (total reflectance) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said size of the pyramid base shaped textured structures, with said manufacturing time and operation efficiency both increasing as the pyramid size is increased, the precise size of the pyramid base shaped textured 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 side length L4 of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the second surface 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 side length L4 of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the second surface in the apparatus of modified Zhang to obtain the desired balance between the manufacturing time and the operation efficiency (total reflectance) (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 7, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Zhang further discloses a first passivation film layer stacked on the doped conductive layer (Zhang - 13 on 2 in Fig. 16); and a second passivation film layer stacked on the passivated contact layer (Zhang – 14 on 9 in Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses a solar cell comprising: a substrate comprising a first surface and a second surface arranged opposite to each other and a plurality of lateral surfaces adjacent to and located between the first surface and the second surface (1 in Fig. 16); a plurality of pyramid base shaped textured structures being constructed on the second surface and each of the lateral surfaces ([0101] line 994; 7 in Fig. 16), wherein each of the pyramid base shaped textured structures has a shape of a truncated pyramid ([0103] line 1037) and has a top surface ([0100] line 984 discloses a flat top).
While Zhang does disclose the textured structure 6 can also be obtained by adjusting the liquid level of the first alkaline cleaning solution 18 and performing the textured treatment only on one side of the n-type silicon wafer 1 in the second direction ([0097] line 943); Zhang does not explicitly disclose a perimeter of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the lateral surfaces is C1, a perimeter of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the second surface is C2, and C1 > C2.
Lee discloses a solar cell and further discloses a relationship between texturing process time, the size of the pyramids, and total reflectance ([0117]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the lateral surfaces with a perimeter that is greater than the perimeter of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures arranged on the second surface 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).
Additionally, as the manufacturing time and efficiency of operation (total reflectance) are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said size of the pyramid base shaped textured structures, with said manufacturing time and operation efficiency both increasing as the pyramid size is increased, the precise size of the pyramid base shaped textured 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 size of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured 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 size of each of the top surfaces of the pyramid base shaped textured structures in the apparatus of Zhang to obtain the desired balance between the manufacturing time and the operation efficiency (total reflectance) (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).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN-113594296-A, cited on 06/26/2024 IDS – see attached machine translation) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0343404 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Albuschies (US 2014/0285224 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Zhang does not explicitly disclose a top end of each of the pyramid base shaped textured structures is provided with depressions, and a depression depth D of each of the depressions satisfies: 50 nm ≤ D ≤ 1000 nm.
Albuschies discloses a solar cell ([0046]) and further discloses a pyramidal structures with a depression depth of 205 nm ([0150]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the top end of the pyramid base shaped textured structures of modified Zhang with depressions having a depth of 205 nm, as disclosed by Albuschies, because as taught by Albuschies, it is possible to use such a process for surface magnification, which is an important step for enhancing the efficiency of solar cells ([0046]).
Claim 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN-113594296-A, cited on 06/26/2024 IDS – see attached machine translation) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0343404 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sheng (WO 2017197811 A1 – see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 18, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Zhang does not explicitly disclose a photovoltaic module comprising at least one cell string, each of the at least one cell string comprising at least two solar cells.
Sheng discloses a photovoltaic module comprising at least one cell string, each of the at least one cell string comprising at least two solar cells (Sheng – lines 17-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the solar cell of modified Zhang in a photovoltaic module comprising at least one cell string, each of the at least one cell string comprising at least two solar cells, as disclosed by Sheng, because the formation of a photovoltaic module comprising multiple solar cells increases electrical output.
Regarding claim 19, modified Zhang discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Zhang further discloses a photovoltaic system comprising the photovoltaic module (Sheng – lines 17-18).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,453,209). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,453,209 recites the limitations of claims 1 and 8 of the instant application. Claims 2-8 and 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,453,209 recite the limitations of claims 2-7, 9, and 18-19 of the instant application.
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