DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment of July 14, 2026 is considered herein.
Claims 1-3, 8 and 9 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 6, and 11-20 being withdrawn to the non-elected species.
Claims 1-5, and 7-10 are considered on the merits herein.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim lacks a connector of “and” between the final two limitations added and has an extra “and” in the 4th limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN et al (US PG PUB 2023/0027079), in view of RICHTER et al (Richter, Maxi, et al. “Impact of rear side roughness on optical and electrical properties of a high-efficiency solar cell.” Energy Procedia, vol. 77, Aug. 2015, pp. 832–839, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.118.).
Regarding claim 1, CHEN et al teaches a solar cell (figures 1, 2, 4) comprising:
a silicon substrate (10, silicon in abstract) having a first surface (rear side of 10 (top of figure 1, bottom of figures 2 and 4)) and a second surface opposite each other (top side of 10 (top of figures 2 and 4, bottom of figure 1));
first doped layers (111, first doped layer, labelled in figure 1, consistent shading in figures 2 and 4, several in that they are each of the separated layers in figures 2 and 4) arranged on the first surface (10), wherein the first doped layers each have several first preset zones (preset zones interpreted to be the surface of 111 opposite the surface abutting the substrate);
several second doped layers (113, second doped layer, labelled in figure 1, consistent shading in figures 2 and 4, several in that they are each of the separated layers in figures 2 and 4) arranged on the first preset zones (the surface of 111), wherein the second doped layers are arranged in a spaced manner (spaced apart from each other, separated by the trenches of figures 2 and 4);
a first passivation film layer (121, second passivation layer) arranged on the second doped layers and the first doped layers (see orientation of overlap in figures 1, 2 and 4)(a second interpretation includes the first passivation film layer being that of 50, shown to overlap the first and second doped layers in figures 1, 2, and 4); and
several first welding spots (70, conductive layer, paragraph [0168], capable of being welded to) arranged on the first passivation film layer (paragraph [0074] teaches the conductive layer being arranged on the passivation film layer 121 of the second passivated contact region, wherein sintering brings it through the passivation layer), wherein orthographic projections of the first welding spots (70) on the first doped layers (111) at least partially overlap orthographic projections of the second doped layers (113) on the first doped layers (111)(wherein overlap in the stacking direction is shown in figures 1, 2, and 4) (the second interpretation of the first passivation film layer would read on the sintered layer of paragraph [0074] a well wherein layer 50 would be fired through upon sintering); and
the first preset zones (surfaces of 111 opposite the substrate surface) are part of surfaces of the first doped layers (111) facing away from the silicon substrate (10).
CHEN et al is silent to any roughness, more specifically roughness of surfaces of the second doped layers in contact with the first passivation film layer is greater than that of surfaces of the first doped layers in contact with the first passivation film layer.
RICHTER et al is directed to a rear side solar cell, just as in CHEN et al RICHTER et al further teaches the addition of a small amount of surface roughness to emitters (doped layers) on the rear layers of the solar cell to reduce surface recombination and increased light trapping in the abstract and figure 1, with benefit increasing when the surfaces are not completely smooth.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to utilize a roughness within the rear layers of CHEN et al, as discussed in RICHTER et al, so as to increase light trapping and reduce surface combination. The second doped layer of (113) CHEN et al is in contact with the first passivation layer (121), but the first doped layer (111) of CHEN et al is not, as shown in figure 1. Therefore, in adding roughness among doped layers of CHEN et al, there will necessarily be more roughness of surfaces of the second doped layers in contact with the first passivation film layer is greater than that of surfaces of the first doped layers in contact with the first passivation film layer.
Regarding claim 2, CHEN et al teaches the polarity of the second doped layers (113) is opposite to that of the first doped layers (111) (first doped layers in stack 20 are opposite polarity of the second doped layers in stack 30, per paragraph [0148]).
Regarding claim 3, CHEN et al teaches the first preset zones (surfaces of 111 on the side opposite the substrate) are part of surfaces of the first doped layers facing away from the silicon substrate (10, see figures 2 and 4), and the second doped layers (113) are arranged on the first preset zones and all located above the first doped layers (111) (see figures 2 and 4, wherein above is relative, but the shared location of all the second doped layers relative to the first renders this claim obvious).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, CHEN et al teaches the solar cell further comprises first isolation layers (112, first passivation layer, taught to be made of silicon oxynitride, silicon nitride in paragraph [0134], just as in the isolation layers of claim 5, rendering the same function of isolation and reading on the isolation layer), wherein the first isolation layers (112) are arranged between the first doped layers and the second doped layers (see figure 1), so as to isolate the first doped layers (111) from the second doped layers (113) (use of the same materials will render the same isolation functionality).
Regarding claim 7, CHEN et al teaches the first passivation film layer (121, second passivation film in a first interpretation or 50, dielectric, in the second interpretation) comprises at least one of a silicon nitride film layer, an aluminum oxide film layer, a silicon oxynitride film layer, an intrinsic amorphous silicon film layer, and a transparent conductive oxide (TCO) film layer (121, taught to amorphous silicon or aluminum oxide, (paragraph [0143]), 50 taught to be aluminum oxide, silicon oxynitride, or silicon nitride in paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 8, CHEN et al teaches further comprising third doped layers (1st and 2nd doped layers are layers 111/113 of stack 30 then 3rd doped layer is doped layer 111 or 113 of stack 20 shown in figure 2), a second passivation film layer (40, first dielectric), and several second welding spots (60), wherein polarity of the third doped layers is opposite to that of the first doped layers (polarity of stack 20 is opposite stack 30, see abstract),
wherein the first doped layers (111 of 30) and the third doped layers (111/113 of 20) are arranged on the first surface (rear side of the substrate 10, see figure 2), the first passivation film layer (121 or 50) is arranged on the first doped layers, the second doped layers and the third doped layers, (see figures 2 and 4) the second welding spots are further arranged on the first passivation film layer (50), and the second passivation film layers (40) is arranged on the second surface (top side of the substrate 10).
Regarding claim 9, CHEN et al teaches in a case that the third doped layers (111/113, in 20) are arranged on the first surface (rear side of figures 2/4), on the first surface, the several first doped layers (111 of alternating 30 regions) and the several third doped layers (111 of alternating 20 regions) are sequentially and alternately arranged in a first direction (horizontal direction of figure 2), and the first doped layers (111 of 30) and the third doped layers (111 of 20) all extend in a second direction (vertical direction, having thickness, of figure 2), wherein the second direction intersects with the first direction (horizontal and vertical intersect).
Regarding claim 10, CHEN et al shows in the first direction (horizontal direction of figure 2), a ratio of a length of the first welding spots (width of component 70) above the second doped layers (113) to a total length of the first welding spots (width of component 70) is greater than or equal to 50% (the ratio is 100% as the entirety of the length of the first welding spot in the first direction is above the second doped layer 113).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and its dependents have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The previously cited art including JOHNSON et al and CN 216311796 are still interpreted to read on the instant claim 1 with the addition of the RITCHER et al reference.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 8/18/2026
Prosecution Insights