www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/870,268
`
`07/21/2022
`
`Peter John COUSINS
`
`SKYW00056-1C US
`
`1086
`
`SchmidtPatentLa pone
`
`Schmidt Patent Law,Inc.
`2635 N. First Street
`Suite 150
`San Jose, CA 95134-2000
`
`
`
`PILLAY, DEVINA
`
`1726
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`02/20/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`docketing @ spatentlaw.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`21-34 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`CL] Claim(s)__is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 21-34 is/are rejected.
`(] Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)( The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on 07/21/2022 is/are: a)[¥) accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)£) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`_—_c)L) None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)Q) All
`1.1) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. |
`3.2.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 02/16/2023.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20230118
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`17/870,268
`COUSINS, Peter John
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`DEVINA PILLAY
`1726
`No
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 10/03/2022.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/870,268
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AlA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis
`
`for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is notidentically disclosed or described
`as set forthin section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`and the prior art are such that the subject m atteras a whole would have been obvious atthe
`time the invention was made to a person having ordinaryskill in the art to which said subject
`matter pertains. Patentability shall notbe negatived by the manner in whichthe invention was
`made.
`
`The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness
`
`under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
`
`1. Determining the scope and contents of the priorart.
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences between theprior art and the claims atissue.
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/870,268
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 3
`
`Claims 21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 33, and 34 is/are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C.
`
`103(a) as being unpatentable over Meier (US 6,262,359) in view of Jordan (US
`
`2005/0268963 A1) in view of Okayasu (JP07-106611, Human Translation) in view of
`
`Borden (WO 2009/094578 A2).
`
`Regarding claims 21, 22, 26, 27,34, Meier discloses a solar cell comprising (see
`
`Fig. 3D, C5/L38-C6/L55):
`
`a n-type silicon substrate (218 n-type, C5/L30-42) having a front surface that
`
`faces the sun to collect solar radiation during normal operation and a back surface
`
`opposite the front surface;
`
`an anti-reflection (214, silicon nitride, C6/L20-25) over the front surface of the
`
`solar cell;
`
`a doped diffusion region in the front surface (216 high doped concentration area
`
`n+) of the substrate
`
`a doped emitter layer (220 p-type) forming a backside junction with the substrate;
`
`a front metal electrode (212, C7/L25-30) disposed overthe front surface of the
`
`substrate;
`
`a back metal electrode (222, C6/L25-30) disposed over the back surface of the
`
`substrate.
`
`However, Meier does not disclose that there is a textured surface on the N-type
`
`silicon substrate on the front side of the solar cell.
`
`Jordan discloses that the front surface of the solar cell is textured ([0022]).
`
`In
`
`addition, Jordan discloses that texturizing the front surface increases light absorption
`
`({0022}).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/870,268
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 4
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to modify the front surface of Meier by texturizing the front surface as
`
`disclosed by Jordan becauseit increases light adsorption.
`
`However, Meier does not disclose that the emitter is a polysilicon emitter and that
`
`there is a tunnel oxide formed between the emitter and the back surface of the
`
`substrate.
`
`Okayasu discloses that instead of forming an emitter from a portion of a
`
`substrate which is doped, an emitter can be formed using a doped polysilicon layer
`
`([0005] [0009], Abstract) and by forming an emitter this way the thickness can be more
`
`accurately controlled and it prevents generation of floating foreign matter ([0008]
`
`[0009)).
`
`It would have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to replace the method of forming the emitter from a portion of a substrate of
`
`Meier and instead form the emitter by using a doped polysilicon layer as disclosed by
`
`Okayasu becausethe thickness can be more accurately controlled and it prevent
`
`generation of floating foreign matter.
`
`However, modified Meier does not disclose a tunneling dielectric oxide between
`
`the emitter/front surface field and the substrate.
`
`Borden discloses that tunnel oxides can be used in solar cells between doped
`
`polysilicon layers and monocrystalline substrates [0016].
`
`Borden discloses that the tunnel oxide is SiOz which can be formed bya rapid
`
`thermal oxidation process ([0018], see Fig. 2A), and is around 12 A.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/870,268
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 5
`
`Furthermore, Borden discloses that by providing the tunneling layerit prevents
`
`epitaxial growth of the emitter layer and furtherit protects the surface from plasma
`
`damage of the deposited emitter layer [0020].
`
`It would have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to modify the interface between the doped polycrystalline emitter layer and
`
`monocrystalline substrate of modified Meier by having a tunneling oxide, SiOz of around
`
`12 A, at the interface as disclosed by Borden because it prevents epitaxial growth of
`
`the emitter layer and furtherit protects the crystalline surface from plasma damageof
`
`the deposited emitter layer.
`
`Regarding claim 30, modified Meier discloses all of the claim limitations as set
`
`forth above.
`
`Meier discloses that the front contact can besilver (212, C7/L10-15).
`
`However, Meier does not disclose that the electrode that is in contact with the p-
`
`type polysilicon layer on the rearis silver.
`
`Okayasu discloses that the back electrode on the polysilicon emitter is formed of
`
`a silver electrode [0044].
`
`It would have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to replace the aluminum electrode of Meier with the silver electrode of
`
`Okayasu because oneofordinary skill
`
`in the art would have been able to carry out such
`
`a substitution, and the results would be reasonably predictable.
`
`Regarding claim 33, modified Meier discloses all of the claim limitations as set
`
`forth above.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/870,268
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 6
`
`Meier discloses that thicknesses of the substrate for forming a solar cell is
`
`between 30-200 microns.
`
`It would have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to modify the thickness from the tip of the textured front surface to the back
`
`surface to be within the range disclosed by Meier because Meier discloses that this is
`
`an appropriate thicknessfora silicon solarcell.
`
`It is also noted that according to MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05,
`
`it would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
`
`to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's
`
`claims becauseit has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by
`
`optimization for the best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted
`
`based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is
`
`obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected
`
`results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See /n re Boesch,
`
`617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff, 919
`
`F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
`
`Claims 23-25 and 28-29 is/are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over Meier (US 6,262,359) in view of Jordan (US 2005/0268963
`
`A1) in view of Okayasu (JP07-106611, Human Translation) in view of Borden (WO
`
`2009/094578 A2) as applied to claims 21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 33, and 34 above andin
`
`further view of Schmidt (Surface passivation of silicon solar cells using plasma-
`
`enhanced chemical-vapour-deposited SiN films and thin thermal SiO2/plasma SiN
`
`stacks).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/870,268
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 7
`
`Regarding claims 23-25, modified Meier discloses all of the claim limitations as
`
`set forth above.
`
`Meier discloses a SiN layer can be optionally grown on the front surface (see
`
`layer 214, C6/L20-25).
`
`However, Meier does not disclose a silicon dioxide layer that is thermally grown
`
`having a thickness between 10-250 A.
`
`Schmidt discloses a silicon dioxide layer that is thermally grown (see section 2.3,
`
`900°C) with thickness between approximately 50-300 A undera silicon nitride layer ona
`
`dopedsilicon layer (see solar cell 4 or 5 in Table 1) on the front surface or the back
`
`surface.
`
`It would have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to modify the silicon nitride layer on the front surface of Meier by replacing it
`
`with silicon oxide and silicon nitride stack as disclosed by Schmidt becauseit can
`
`improvesolar cell and performance and/or becauseit is an equivalent structure for
`
`replacingasilicon nitride structure on the front surface of a dopedsilicon surface
`
`because Schmidt discloses it is an equivalent structure.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the
`
`reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a
`
`prima facie case of obviousness.
`
`In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
`
`Regarding claims 28 and 29, modified Meier discloses all of the claim limitations
`
`as set forth above.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/870,268
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 8
`
`However, modified Meier does not disclose a passivation layer on the doped
`
`polysilicon emitter.
`
`Schmidt discloses a silicon dioxide layer that is thermally grown (see section 2.3,
`
`900°C) with thickness between approximately 50-300 A undera silicon nitride layer ona
`
`dopedsilicon layer (see solar cell 4 or 5 in Table 1) on an emitter and further discloses
`
`that if this structure is constructed on the back surface rear surface contacts can pierce
`
`through the SiO2/SiN layer stack to contact the emitter.
`
`It would have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to modify the back surface of the polysilicon emitter Meier by passivating it
`
`with a silicon oxide and silicon nitride stack as disclosed by Schmidt becauseit can
`
`improve solar cell and performance and furthermoreit would have been appropriate to
`
`provide openings in these layers so that the rear metal contacts can pierce through
`
`them as disclosed by Schmidt becauseit will allow for the rear contact to contact the
`
`dopedsilicon layer.
`
`Claims 31 and 32 is/are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Meier (US 6,262,359) in view of Jordan (US 2005/0268963 A1) in
`
`view of Okayasu (JP07-106611, Human Translation) in view of Borden (WO
`
`2009/094578 A2) as applied to claims 21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 33, and 34 above andin
`
`further view of in view of Tsunomura (US 2008/0121266 A1).
`
`Regarding claims 31 and 32, modified Meier discloses all of the claim limitations
`
`as set forth above.
`
`However, modified Meier does not disclose two bus bars on the front which run
`
`perpendicular to electrodes and two busbars onthe rear of the cell.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/870,268
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 9
`
`Tsunomura discloses two bus bars on the front (20) which run perpendicular to
`
`electrodes (30) and two bus bars ontherearof the cell (20) (see Figs. 2 and 3)
`
`([0029][0030)).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to modify the solar cell of Meier so that there are bus bars as disclosed by
`
`Tsunomura becauseit will improve the collection of photogenerated carriers because
`
`there are additional contacts and conductivity of the electrode.
`
`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 actualor provisional rejection based on nonstatutory
`
`double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/870,268
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 10
`
`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 underthefirst inventor tofile
`
`provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146etseq. for
`
`applications not subject to examination underthefirst inventor to file provisions of the
`
`AlA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
`
`The USPTOInternet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be
`
`used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. Thefiling 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
`
`befilled 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
`
`Claims 21-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting
`
`as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,222,516 in view of
`
`Meier (US 6,262,359) in view of Borden (WO 2009/094578 A2) in view of Schmidt
`
`(Surface passivation of silicon solar cells using plasma-enhanced chemical-
`
`vapour-deposited SiN films and thin thermal SiO2/plasma SiN stacks) in view of
`
`Tsunomura (US 2008/0121266 A1).
`
`Although the claims at issue are notidentical, they are not patentably distinct
`
`from each other because they recite a substantially similar structure fora solar cell with
`
`the exception of:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/870,268
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 11
`
`e
`
`e
`
`e
`
`e
`
`the dopeddiffusion region in the silicon substrate (Meier)
`
`tunnel oxide thickness (SiOz of around 12 A taught by Borden)
`
`bus bar structures connected to electrode (taught by Tsunomura)
`
`substrate thickness between 100-250 microns (taught by Meier)
`
`It would have been obviousto oneof ordinary skill in the art at the time offiling to
`
`modify the thickness of the substrate and the modify the front surface of the solar cell
`
`surface of claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,222,516 as disclosed by Meier because
`
`doing so can improvesolar cell performed (front surface field) and to modify the
`
`thickness from the tip of the textured front surface to the back surface to be within the
`
`range disclosed by Meier because Meierdiscloses that this is an appropriate thickness
`
`for asilicon solar cell.
`
`It would have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to modify the solar cell of claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,222,516 so that
`
`there are bus bars as disclosed by Tsunomura becauseit will improve the collection of
`
`photogenerated carriers because there are additional contacts and conductivity of the
`
`electrode.
`
`It would have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to modify the interface between the doped polycrystalline emitter layer and
`
`monocrystalline substrate of claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,222,516 by having a
`
`tunneling oxide, SiO2 of around 12 A,
`
`atthe interface as disclosed by Borden becauseit
`
`prevents epitaxial growth of the emitter layer and furtherit protects the crystalline
`
`surface from plasma damageof the deposited emitter layer.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/870,268
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 12
`
`Conclusion
`
`Anyinquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone numberis (571)270-
`
`1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
`
`Examinerinterviews 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 AutomatedInterview Request
`
`(AIR) at http:/Avwww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached on 517-272-1307. 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 Centeris
`
`available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center,
`
`visit: httos://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https:/Avww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-
`
`center for more information about Patent Center and
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information aboutfiling 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.
`
`DEVINA PILLAY
`Primary Examiner
`Art Unit 1726
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/870,268
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`/DEVINA PILLAY/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
`
`Page 13
`
`