Application No. 17/870,268
`
`Docket No. SKYW00056-1C US
`
`REMARKS
`
`In the Office Action dated February 20, 2024, claims 21-34 were rejected. With this
`
`response, claim 21 has been amendedforclarity, claims 31-33 are canceled without prejudice or
`
`disclaimer, and claims 35-43 are newly added. Support for the amendmentsto the claims is
`
`found in the originally filed drawings, including Figs. 1-2 and 4G andthe corresponding portions
`
`of the specification. The Examineris encouraged to contact the undersigned to discuss the
`
`amendments and any questions regarding the support.
`
`No new matter has been added.
`
`Claim Rejections — 35 USC 103
`
`Claims 21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over U.S. patent no. 6,262,359 to Meier, (hereinafter referred to as, “Meier”) in
`
`view of U.S. publication no. 2005/0268963 to Jordan, (hereinafter referred to as, “Jordan”’) in
`
`view of JP07-106611 to Okayasu, (hereinafter referred to as, “Okayasu”) in view of WO
`
`2009/094578 A2 to Borden, (hereinafter referred to as, “Borden”). Claims 23-25 and 28-29 are
`
`rejected as being unpatentable over Meier, in view of Jordan, Okayasu and Bordenas applied to
`
`claims 21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 33 and 34 above andin further view of, “Surface passivation of silicon
`
`solar cells using plasma-enhanced chemical-vapour deposited SiN films and thin thermal
`
`Sio2/plasma SiN stack”, to Schmidt, (hereinafter referred to as, “Schmidt”). Claims 31 and 32 are
`
`rejected under 35 USC as being unpatentable over Meier, in view of Jordan, Okayasu and
`
`Bordenas applied to claims 21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 33 and 34 above andin further view of U.S.
`
`publication no. 2008/0121266 to Tsunomura, (hereinafter referred to as, “Tsunomura’).
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of Meier, Jordan, Okayasu, and
`
`Borden would result, presuming such a combination were proper, would result in a solar cell
`
`having a polysilicon region located at the front surface. On the other hand, claim 21 recites a
`
`diffusion region in the silicon substrate proximate the front surface and a polysilicon region at
`
`the back surface. Claim 21 is clarified herein to emphasize this distinction by clarifying the
`
`structural arrangement of the doped diffusion region, the antireflective layer, and the front metal
`
`contact — there’s no separate polysilicon region at the front surface.
`
`Applicant further submits that Jordan, Schmidt, and Tsunomura do notcure this
`
`deficiency. Therefore, applicant submits that claims 21-30 and 35-43 are patentable under 35
`
`
`
`Application No. 17/870,268
`
`Docket No. SKYW00056-1C US
`
`USC 103 over Meier in view of Okayasu and Borden and in further view of Jordan, Schmidt,
`
`and/or Tsunomura.
`
`Double Patenting Rejection
`
`Claims 21-34 were rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting rejection as
`
`being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. patent no. 8,222,516 in view of Meier, Borden,
`
`Schmidt and Tsunomura. Applicant submits that this double patenting rejection may be mootin
`
`view of the claim amendments.
`
`
`
`Application No. 17/870,268
`
`Docket No. SKYW00056-1C US
`
`Conclusion
`
`The Commissioneris hereby authorized to charge any additional fee(s), charge any
`
`underpaymentof fee(s), or credit any overpayment associated with this communication to
`
`Deposit Account No. 60-3846.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`‘JacksonHo/
`Jackson Ho, Reg. No. 72,360
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`Schmidt Patent Law,Inc.
`2635 N.First Street, Suite 150
`San Jose, CA 95134-2000
`Telephone: tI.408.331.1671
`jhow@spatentlaw cam
`E-mail:
`
`I hereby certify that this correspondenceis being
`Certificate of Patent Center Transmission:
`transmitted electronically via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Center
`filing system to the USPTO on: August 20, 2024.
`
`/Jackson Ho/
`Jackson Ho, Reg. No. 72,360
`
`
