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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 5/20/2026 does not put the application in condition for allowance.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 12-14, and 18-20 is/are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pub No. 2024/0363771)
Regarding Claim 1, Chen et al. teaches a back contact solar cell [Fig. 1, 0051], comprising: a semiconductor substrate [11, Fig. 1, 0051], a first doped semiconductor part [121, Fig. 1, 0052], a second doped semiconductor part [122, Fig. 1, 0052], a first dielectric passivation layer [see annotated figure below], and
a second dielectric passivation layer [see annotated figure below], wherein a conductivity type of the first doped semiconductor part is opposite to a conductivity type of the second doped semiconductor part [0051-0052],
wherein each of the first dielectric passivation layer [see annotated figure below] and the second dielectric passivation layer [see annotated figure below] comprises a first passivation sub-layer having a field passivation function, and wherein the conductivity type of the first doped semiconductor part is opposite to a conductivity type of fixed charges of the first passivation sub-layer [see annotated figure below],
The following interpretation is consistent with figure 12 and para. 79 on page 23 of the instant application, examiner is reading the 15 and 16 in the circle portion as the first dielectric passivation layer, and the 15 and 16 of the rectangle section as the second dielectric passivation layer. In the circle portion, examiner is reading 16 as the first passivation sublayer, and 15 as the second passivation sublayer. In the rectangle portion, examiner is reading 16 as the first passivation sublayer, and 15 as the second passivation sublayer.
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
418
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the semiconductor substrate [11, Fig. 1, 0051] comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other [Fig. 1, 0051] wherein along a direction parallel to the first surface, the first doped semiconductor part and the second doped semiconductor part are alternately distributed on the first surface [Fig. 1, 0051],
wherein the first dielectric passivation layer covers a side of the first doped semiconductor
part facing away from the semiconductor substrate, and the second dielectric passivation layer
covers a side of the second doped semiconductor part facing away from the semiconductor
substrate [see annotated figure],
wherein a thickness of the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer is greater than a thickness of the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the second dielectric passivation layer [according to the annotated figure, when the vertical direction is defined as the thickness direction, 16 in a portion in the circle would have a portion thicker than a portion in the 16 portion in the rectangle, meeting the limitation of the claim, the interpretation is consistent with figure 12 of the instant application], and
wherein each of the first dielectric passivation layer and the second dielectric passivation
layer further comprises a second passivation sub-layer having a chemical passivation function,
wherein the second passivation sub-layer is disposed on a side of the first passivation sub-layer
facing away from the semiconductor substrate [see annotated figure, 0079, 0082], wherein a material of the second passivation sub-layer comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer is different from a material of the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer, and wherein a material of the second passivation sub-layer comprised in the second dielectric passivation
layer is different from a material of the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the second
dielectric passivation layer [first dielectric layer is made of silicon nitride, 0079, the second dielectric layer made of aluminum oxide, 0082].
Chen et al. is silent on wherein a doping concentration of a dopant in the first doped semiconductor part is less than a doping concentration of a dopant in the second doped semiconductor part.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the back contact solar cell, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the back contact solar cell are changed, the precise the parameters of the back contact solar cell would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a doping concentration of a dopant in the first doped semiconductor part is less than a doping concentration of a dopant in the second doped semiconductor part.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of back contact solar cell to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons give above, Chen et al. is silent on wherein under a same test condition, a photometric luminance (PL) value of a part on a back surface of the back contact solar cell corresponding to the second doped semiconductor part is greater than a PL value of a part on the back surface of the back contact solar cell corresponding to the first doped semiconductor part.
Modified Chen et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claims; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of Chen et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed limitation of “wherein under a same test condition, a photometric luminance (PL) value of a part on a back surface of the back contact solar cell corresponding to the second doped semiconductor part is greater than a PL value of a part on the back surface of the back contact solar cell corresponding to the first doped semiconductor part.” is met.
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons give above, Chen et al. is silent on wherein the thickness of the first passivation sub-layer is greater than or equal to 2 nm and less than or equal to 15 nm.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation layer layers, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation layer layers are changed, the precise the parameters of the passivation layer layers would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the thickness of the first passivation sub-layer is greater than or equal to 2 nm and less than or equal to 15 nm.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation layer layers to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. teaches wherein a thickness of the second passivation sub-layer comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer is less than a thickness of the second passivation sub-layer comprised in the second dielectric passivation layer [See annotated figure in claim 1].
Regarding Claim 5, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. is silent on wherein a difference between a thickness of the second passivation sub-layer comprised in the second dielectric passivation layer and a thickness of the second passivation sub-layer comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer is greater than or equal to 0.5 nm and less than or equal to 5 nm.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation layer layers, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation layer layers are changed, the precise the parameters of the passivation layer layers would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a difference between a thickness of the second passivation sub-layer comprised in the second dielectric passivation layer and a thickness of the second passivation sub-layer comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer is greater than or equal to 0.5 nm and less than or equal to 5 nm.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation layer layers to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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 6, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. is silent on wherein a thickness of the second passivation sub-layer is greater than or equal to 50 nm and less than or equal to 160 nm.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation layer layers, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation layer layers are changed, the precise the parameters of the passivation layer layers would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a thickness of the second passivation sub-layer is greater than or equal to 50 nm and less than or equal to 160 nm.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation layer layers to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. teaches wherein a thickness of the first dielectric passivation layer is less than a thickness of the second dielectric passivation layer [see annotated figure in claim 1].
Regarding Claim 8, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. is silent on wherein a ratio of a thickness of the first dielectric passivation layer to a thickness of the second dielectric passivation layer is greater than or equal to 0.9 and less than or equal to 1.1.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation layer layers, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation layer layers are changed, the precise the parameters of the passivation layer layers would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a ratio of a thickness of the first dielectric passivation layer to a thickness of the second dielectric passivation layer is greater than or equal to 0.9 and less than or equal to 1.1.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation layer layers to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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 9, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. is silent on wherein a thickness of the first dielectric passivation layer and a thickness of the second dielectric passivation layer is greater than or equal to 52 nm and less than or equal to 175 nm.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation layer layers, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation layer layers are changed, the precise the parameters of the passivation layer layers would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a thickness of the first dielectric passivation layer and a thickness of the second dielectric passivation layer is greater than or equal to 52 nm and less than or equal to 175 nm.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation layer layers to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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 12, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. is silent on wherein a surface reflectance of the side of the first doped semiconductor part facing away from the semiconductor substrate is greater than a surface reflectance of the side of the second doped semiconductor part facing away from the semiconductor substrate.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation layer layers, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation layer layers are changed, the precise the parameters of the passivation layer layers would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a surface reflectance of the side of the first doped semiconductor part facing away from the semiconductor substrate is greater than a surface reflectance of the side of the second doped semiconductor part facing away from the semiconductor substrate.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation layer layers to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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 13, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. is silent on wherein a side of the first doped semiconductor part facing away from the semiconductor substrate has a first texture structure, and a side of the second doped semiconductor part facing away from the semiconductor substrate has a second texture structure, and wherein a one-dimensional size of the first texture structure is different from a one-dimensional size of the second texture structure.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation layer layers, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation layer layers are changed, the precise the parameters of the passivation layer layers would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a surface reflectance of the side of the first doped semiconductor part facing away from the semiconductor substrate is greater than a surface reflectance of the side of the second doped semiconductor part facing away from the semiconductor substrate.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation layer layers to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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 14, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. is silent on wherein the first doped semiconductor part is a p-type doped semiconductor part, and the second doped semiconductor part is an n-type doped semiconductor part, wherein a thickness of the first doped semiconductor part is greater than a thickness of the second doped semiconductor part.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the back contact solar cell, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the back contact solar cell are changed, the precise the parameters of the back contact solar cell would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein the first doped semiconductor part is a p-type doped semiconductor part, and the second doped semiconductor part is an n-type doped semiconductor part, wherein a thickness of the first doped semiconductor part is greater than a thickness of the second doped semiconductor part.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the back contact solar cell to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. teaches wherein the material of the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer is the same as the material of the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the second dielectric passivation layer; and/or the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer and
the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the second dielectric passivation layer are integrally
continuous [see rejection of claim 1]
Regarding Claim 19, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. teaches wherein the material of the second passivation sub-layer comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer is the same as the material of the second passivation sub-layer comprised in the second dielectric passivation layer, and wherein the second passivation sub-layer comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer and the second passivation sub-layer comprised in the second dielectric passivation layer are integrally continuous [see rejection of claim 1]
Regarding Claim 20, Chen et al. teaches a photovoltaic module [0005], comprising
a back contact solar cell [Fig. 1, 0051], comprising: a semiconductor substrate [11, Fig. 1, 0051], a first doped semiconductor part [121, Fig. 1, 0052], a second doped semiconductor part [122, Fig. 1, 0052], a first dielectric passivation layer [see annotated figure below], and
a second dielectric passivation layer [see annotated figure below], wherein a conductivity type of the first doped semiconductor part is opposite to a conductivity type of the second doped semiconductor part [0051-0052],
wherein each of the first dielectric passivation layer [see annotated figure below] and the second dielectric passivation layer [see annotated figure below] comprises a first passivation sub-layer having a field passivation function, and wherein the conductivity type of the first doped semiconductor part is opposite to a conductivity type of fixed charges of the first passivation sub-layer [see annotated figure below],
The following interpretation is consistent with figure 12 and para. 79 on page 23 of the instant application, examiner is reading the 15 and 16 in the circle portion as the first dielectric passivation layer, and the 15 and 16 of the rectangle section as the second dielectric passivation layer. In the circle portion, examiner is reading 16 as the first passivation sublayer, and 15 as the second passivation sublayer. In the rectangle portion, examiner is reading 16 as the first passivation sublayer, and 15 as the second passivation sublayer.
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
418
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the semiconductor substrate [11, Fig. 1, 0051] comprises a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other [Fig. 1, 0051] wherein along a direction parallel to the first surface, the first doped semiconductor part and the second doped semiconductor part are alternately distributed on the first surface [Fig. 1, 0051],
wherein the first dielectric passivation layer covers a side of the first doped semiconductor
part facing away from the semiconductor substrate, and the second dielectric passivation layer
covers a side of the second doped semiconductor part facing away from the semiconductor
substrate [see annotated figure],
wherein a thickness of the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer is greater than a thickness of the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the second dielectric passivation layer [according to the annotated figure, when the vertical direction is defined as the thickness direction, 16 in a portion in the circle would have a portion thicker than a portion in the 16 portion in the rectangle, meeting the limitation of the claim, the interpretation is consistent with figure 12 of the instant application], and
wherein each of the first dielectric passivation layer and the second dielectric passivation
layer further comprises a second passivation sub-layer having a chemical passivation function,
wherein the second passivation sub-layer is disposed on a side of the first passivation sub-layer
facing away from the semiconductor substrate [see annotated figure, 0079, 0082], wherein a material of the second passivation sub-layer comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer is different from a material of the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer, and wherein a material of the second passivation sub-layer comprised in the second dielectric passivation
layer is different from a material of the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the second
dielectric passivation layer [first dielectric layer is made of silicon nitride, 0079, the second dielectric layer made of aluminum oxide, 0082].
Chen et al. is silent on wherein a doping concentration of a dopant in the first doped semiconductor part is less than a doping concentration of a dopant in the second doped semiconductor part.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the back contact solar cell, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the back contact solar cell are changed, the precise the parameters of the back contact solar cell would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a doping concentration of a dopant in the first doped semiconductor part is less than a doping concentration of a dopant in the second doped semiconductor part.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of back contact solar cell to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pub No. 2024/0363771) in view Seo (US Pub No. 2012/0247549)
Regarding Claim 10, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. is silent on wherein the first passivation sub- layer is an aluminum oxide layer, wherein under a test condition in which an exposure time is 0.2s and a light intensity is 1 sun: a PL value corresponding to the side of the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer that faces away from the semiconductor substrate is greater than or equal to 5000; and a PL value corresponding to the side of the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the second dielectric passivation layer that faces away from the semiconductor substrate is greater than or equal to 16500.
Seo et al. teaches a back contact solar cell which comprising a passivation layer made of aluminum oxide [0015].
Since modified Chen et al. teaches a first passivation layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the first passivation layer of Chen et al. with the aluminum oxide passivation layer of Seo et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional passivation material in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Modified Chen et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claims; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of Chen et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed limitation of “wherein under a test condition in which an exposure time is 0.2s and a light intensity is 1 sun: a PL value corresponding to the side of the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer that faces away from the semiconductor substrate is greater than or equal to 5000; and a PL value corresponding to the side of the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the second dielectric passivation layer that faces away from the semiconductor substrate is greater than or equal to 16500.” is met.
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 11, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. is silent on wherein the first passivation sub-layer is an aluminum oxide layer, and wherein under a test condition in which an exposure time is 0.2s and a light intensity is 1 sun, a ratio of a PL value corresponding to the side of the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the second dielectric passivation layer that faces away from the semiconductor substrate to a PL value corresponding to the side of the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer that faces away from the semiconductor substrate is greater than or equal to 2.5 and less than or equal to 3.4.
Seo et al. teaches a back contact solar cell which comprising a passivation layer made of aluminum oxide [0015].
Since modified Chen et al. teaches a first passivation layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the first passivation layer of Chen et al. with the aluminum oxide passivation layer of Seo et al. as it is merely the selection of a conventional passivation material in the art and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Modified Chen et al. teaches all the structural limitations of the claims; therefore, it is the view of the examiner, based on the teaching of Chen et al., has a reasonable basis to believe that the claimed limitation of “wherein under a test condition in which an exposure time is 0.2s and a light intensity is 1 sun, a ratio of a PL value corresponding to the side of the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the second dielectric passivation layer that faces away from the semiconductor substrate to a PL value corresponding to the side of the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer that faces away from the semiconductor substrate is greater than or equal to 2.5 and less than or equal to 3.4.” is met.
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pub No. 2024/0363771) in view Hasegawa (US Pub No. 2014/0020742)
Regarding Claim 15, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. is silent on wherein the first passivation sub- layer comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer comprises a hydrogen-containing passivation layer, and wherein a portion of the hydrogen-containing passivation layer has micro-structures.
Hasegawa et al. teaches a passivation layer comprising hydrogen [Claim 3 and 6].
Since Chen et al. teaches the use of a passivation layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the passivation layer of Chen et al. with the hydrogen as taught by Hasegawa et al. as it is merely the selection of a convention passivation layer material and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation layer layers, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation layer layers are changed, the precise the parameters of the passivation layer layers would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “and wherein a portion of the hydrogen-containing passivation layer has micro-structures.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation layer layers to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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 16, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. is silent on wherein the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer and the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the second dielectric passivation layer each comprise the hydrogen-containing passivation layer, and
wherein a distribution density of the micro-structures in the first passivation sub-layer
comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer is greater than a distribution density of the
micro-structures in the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the second dielectric passivation
layer.
Hasegawa et al. teaches a passivation layer comprising hydrogen [Claim 3 and 6].
Since Chen et al. teaches the use of a passivation layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to modify the passivation layers of Chen et al. with the hydrogen as taught by Hasegawa et al. as it is merely the selection of a convention passivation layer material and one of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation layer layers, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation layer layers are changed, the precise the parameters of the passivation layer layers would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a distribution density of the micro-structures in the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the first dielectric passivation layer is greater than a distribution density of the micro-structures in the first passivation sub-layer comprised in the second dielectric passivation layer.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation layer layers to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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 17, Chen et al. is relied upon for the reasons given above, Chen et al. is silent on wherein a size of at least one of the micro-structures is greater than or equal to 10 µm and less than or equal to 20 µm, and wherein a height of the at least one of the micro-structures is greater than or equal to 0.1 µm and less than or equal to 0.5 µm.
As the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the passivation layer layers, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the passivation layer layers are changed, the precise the parameters of the passivation layer layers would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a size of at least one of the micro-structures is greater than or equal to 10 µm and less than or equal to 20 µm, and wherein a height of the at least one of the micro-structures is greater than or equal to 0.1 µm and less than or equal to 0.5 µm.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of the passivation layer layers to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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).
Since the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to applicants to show otherwise. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the new limitations, as the cost of construction and efficiency of operation are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the back contact solar cell, with said construction cost and operating efficiency both changing as the parameters of the back contact solar cell are changed, the precise the parameters of the back contact solar cell would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed “wherein a doping concentration of a dopant in the first doped semiconductor part is less than a doping concentration of a dopant in the second doped semiconductor part.” cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the parameters of back contact solar cell to obtain the desired balance between the construction cost and the operation efficiency (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).
Conclusion
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 MICHAEL Y SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-0557. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM.
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, MATTHEW MARTIN can be reached at (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 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.
/MICHAEL Y SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
