DETAILED ACTION
(1)
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 . This is the first office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending before the Office for review.
(2)
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 limits the protective layer to a nitride including one Group III element consisting of scandium, yttrium, lanthanum and actinium. Claim 3 requires the protective layer comprises aluminum nitride. These requirements contradict one another and render the claim scope insolubly ambiguous.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite because its scope is unascertainable to one ordinarily skilled in the art.
(3)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 limits the protective layer to a nitride including one Group III element consisting of scandium, yttrium, lanthanum and actinium. Claim 3 requires the protective layer comprises aluminum nitride. These requirements contradict one another, meaning claim 3 is not further limiting of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
(4)
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.
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 1-10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 118630101 A), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement, in view of Bi et al. (CN 115832103 A), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement. Yang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0072157) is relied upon as an English-language equivalent for the foreign language patent document. The citations to Bi refer to the included English-language machine translation.
With respect to claims 1, 2 and 3, Yang teaches a photovoltaic cell comprising a first surface, a second surface opposite to the first surface and a third surface (edge) connecting the first surface with the second surface. Figure 3 and Paragraph 64.
Yang further teaches a passivation layer comprising aluminum oxide is formed over the third surface. Paragraphs 65 and 67.
Yang next teaches a second passivation layer is formed over the first passivation layer to protect the first passivation layer, meaning the second passivation layer is a protective layer within the scope of the claimed invention, and is formed on a side of the passivation layer away from the third surface. Paragraph 84. Yang also teaches the second passivation layer is aluminum nitride. Paragraph 84.
Yang is silent as to whether the protective layer is a nitride consisting of yttrium, scandium, lanthanum or actinium.
However, Bi, which deals with edge passivation materials and techniques, teaches lanthanum nitride is an effective edge passivation material. Page 3, Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of Yang with Bi is the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Yang and Bi both teach edge passivation materials. Bi teaches lanthanum nitride is an effective passivation material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize lanthanum nitride as the passivation layer that performs the protective function because Bi teaches this to be an effective passivation material for edges of silicon solar cells, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 4, modified Yang teaches the first passivation layer and the second passivation layer that is a protective layer, but is silent as to whether an intermediate layer comprising aluminum is present between the two.
However, Bi also teaches the nitride-containing passivation layer can be paired in combination with aluminum oxide. Page 3, Paragraph 5.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally utilize aluminum oxide as an intermediate material in the passivation layer stack taught by modified Yang because Bi teaches the lanthanum nitride passivation layer can be used in combination with an aluminum oxide passivation layer, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Examiner notes the claim is a product-by-process claim. “If the product in the product-by-process is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113. In this case, Yang teaches the cell is a sliced cell obtained by performing a cutting process on a crystalline-silicon based cell, wherein the third surface is a cut surface of the sliced cell. Paragraph 64.
With respect to claims 7 and 9, modified Yang teaches the passivation layer and the protective layer, but is silent as to the thickness ratio of the two in a direction perpendicular to the third surface.
However, as per the MPEP, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims [is] a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device [is[ not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (internal citation omitted).
In this case, the passivation layer and protective layer perform their respective functions independent of their specific thickness ratio in a direction perpendicular to the third surface.
With respect to claim 8, modified Yang teaches the protective layer that is the second passivation layer but is silent as to its thickness.
However, Bi teaches a thickness of 1 nm to 1 micrometer is an effective thickness for a passivation film for edge passivation of a solar cell. Pages 2-3, Bridge paragraph. As per the MPEP, where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form modified Yang’s protective layer with a thickness between 1 nm and 1 micrometer because Bi teaches this to be an effective thickness for an edge passivation film in a solar cell, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claims 10 and 13, modified Yang is silent as to whether the passivation layer comprises first and second sub-passivation layers stacked in order on the third surface, wherein the first sub-passivation layer is silicon oxide and the second sub-passivation layer is the metal oxide.
However, Bi further teaches the edge passivation layer can be a combination of multiple materials, such as aluminum oxide and silicon oxide, which includes in its scope a multi-layer arrangement within the scope of the claimed invention. Page 3, Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of Yang with Bi is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Both Yang and Bi teach edge passivation of silicon solar cells. Yang teaches an aluminum oxide passivation layer. Bi teaches silicon oxide and aluminum oxide can be used in combination. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a first silicon oxide layer and a second aluminum oxide layer in combination because Bi teaches these are effective edge materials that are usable in combination in edge passivation, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 12, modified Yang teaches the second sub-passivation layer and the protective layer but is silent as to whether a thickness of the protective layer is greater than or equal to a thickness of the second sub-passivation layer.
However, as per the MPEP, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims [is] a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device [is[ not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (internal citation omitted).
In this case, the second sub-passivation layer and protective layer perform their respective functions independent of their specific thicknesses.
(5)
Claims 14, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 118630101 A) in view of Bi et al. (CN 115832103 A), as applied to claims 1-10, 12 and 13 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (CN 111430506 A). The text citations to Chen refer to the included English-language machine translation.
With respect to claims 14 and 15, modified Yang teaches edge passivation comprising a protective layer but is silent as to whether it extends to the first surface of the cell and/or to the second surface of the cell.
However, Chen, which deals with edge passivation, teaches the passivation layer is structed to extend to the first and second surfaces of the cell from the edge. Abstract and Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of modified Yang with Chen is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Modified Yang teaches an edge passivation structure comprising a first passivation layer and a second passivation layer that is also a protective layer. Chen teaches edge passivation comprising an edge passivation layer that covers the first and second surfaces of the solar cell in addition to the edge surface. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structure modified Yang’s first and second passivation layers to extend to the first and second surfaces because Chen teaches this to be an effective edge passivation solar cell structure, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 19, modified Yang teaches the protective layer extends to the first and second surfaces but is silent as to a width by which the protective layer extends from an edge of the cell towards a center of the cell.
However, as per the MPEP, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims [is] a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device [is[ not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) (internal citation omitted).
In this case, the protective layer perform its functions independent of its specific width extension.
(6)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (CN 118630101 A) in view of Bi et al. (CN 115832103 A), as applied to claims 1-10, 12 and 13 above, and further in view of Miyamoto et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0013348).
With respect to claim 20, modified Yang teaches the solar cell but is silent as to its modularization.
However, Miyamoto, which deals with photovoltaic modules, teaches a solar cell is packaged into a module by connecting in series or parallel the bus bar electrodes of a plurality of solar cells and encapsulating the interconnected cells by an encapsulant and glass plate into a module. Paragraph 60.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of modified Yang with Miyamoto is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Modified Yang teaches a solar cell. Miyamoto teaches a solar cell is modularized by interconnecting the solar cell with additional solar cells and encapsulating the interconnected cells with an encapsulant and glass cover. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use this approach to modularize modified Yang’s cell to obtain a photovoltaic module because Miyamoto teaches this to be an effective technique, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
(7)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, individually or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest the first passivation layer comprises first, second and third sub-passivation layers, wherein the first sub-passivation layer includes silicon oxide, the third-sub passivation layer is formed between the first and second sub-passivation layers and includes a metal silicon oxide and the second sub-passivation layer includes the metal oxide, wherein the metal of the metal silicon oxide is the same as that of the metal oxide, as required by claim 11.
(8)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI S MEKHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 am to 5:00 pm 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ELI S MEKHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
