UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/817,551
`
`11/20/2017
`
`Toshiaki Baba
`
`P171285US00
`
`1056
`
`WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
`8500 LEESBURG PIKE
`SUITE 7500
`
`TYSONS, VA 22182
`
`SMITH ERIC R
`
`1726
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`10/3 0/2020
`
`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):
`
`patentmai1@ whda.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/817,551
`Examiner
`ERIC R SMITH
`
`Applicant(s)
`Baba, Toshiaki
`Art Unit
`1726
`
`AIA (FITF) Status
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from 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, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 6/7/2020.
`CI A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)[:] This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4):] 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 Expade Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)
`
`Claim(s)
`
`13 and 17—21 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`
`
`[:1 Claim(ss)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(ss) 13 and 17—21 is/are rejected.
`
`D Claim(ss_) is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`S)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s
`* If any claims have been determined aflowable. you may be eligible 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 PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)|:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`is/are: a)[] accepted or b)l:] objected to by the Examiner.
`11)[:] The drawing(s) filed on
`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)D Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)I:l All
`
`b)|:] Some**
`
`c)l:I None of the:
`
`1C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3D Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in 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) [3 Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 7/28/2020.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) E] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20201027
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/817,551
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 2
`
`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.
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR
`
`1.17(e), was filed in this application afterfinal rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued
`
`examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the
`
`finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applica nt's
`
`submission filed on 6/7/2020 has been entered.
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`The amendment filed 6/7/2020 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
`
`The previous art rejections over Chan are revised to address new claim limitations.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claim 13 objected to because ofthe following informalities: the third line from the bottom
`
`defines a ”rearsemiconductor layer”, and the second line from the bottom refers to ”the semiconductor
`
`layer”. Amending the second phrase to read ”the rearsemiconductor layer"will avoid confusion.
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/817,551
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 3
`
`The text of those sections ofTitle 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a
`
`prior Office action.
`
`Claims 13, 17, 18, 20, and 21 is/a re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatenta ble over
`
`US PGPub 2015/0072467 to Chan (of record).
`
`Regarding claims 13, 17, 18, 20, and 21, Chan teachesa solar cell comprising
`
`a crystalline silicon substrate 14/12 (Fig. 2, 110044, 0045, 0053)
`
`a passivation layer 16 formed on a light receiving surface of the crystalline silicon substrate
`
`0
`
`0
`
`14/12/22 (110049)
`
`0
`
`a light receiving surface electrode 18/20 formed on the light receiving surface side of the
`
`crystalline silicon substrate 14/12 (110046)
`
`0
`
`a rearsurface electrode 26/28 formed on the rearsurface side of the crystalline silicon substrate
`
`(110048)
`
`0 wherein the crystalline silicon substrate 14/12 comprises a doped layer 14 in the vicinity of the
`
`interface between the crystalline silicon substrate and the passivation layer 16
`
`0 wherein
`
`o
`
`the crystalline silicon substrate 14/12 is an n-type crystalline silicon substrate (110057)
`
`0
`
`the light receiving surface electrode 18/20 comprises
`
`0
`
`a first transparent conductive layer 18 formed on a whole surface of the passivation
`
`layer 16 (Fig. 2)
`
`o
`
`a first collector electrode 20 formed on the first transparent conductive layer 18, the
`
`first collector electrode including a plurality of finger electrodes (110046)
`
`0
`
`the rearsurface electrode 26/28 comprises
`
`0
`
`a second transparent conductive layer 26 formed on the rear surface side of the
`
`crystalline silicon substrate 14/12
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/817,551
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page4
`
`o
`
`a second collector electrode 28 formed on the second transparent conductive layer 26,
`
`the second collector electrode formed in a larger area than the first collector electrode
`
`(Fig. 2 shows that the electrode 28 is formed to completely cover the second
`
`transparent conductive layer 26, whereasthe first collector electrode 20 only partially
`
`covers first transparent conductive layer 18).
`
`The limitation that the doped layeris formed by doping a surface of the crystalline silicon
`
`substrate into an n-type is a product-by-process limitation. The determination of patentability is based
`
`upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability ofa product or apparatus does not depend on its
`
`method of production or formation.
`
`|fthe product in the product-by-process claim 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
`
`(see MPEP § 2113).
`
`Chan teaches that the doped layer 14 is formed of epitaxially-formed monocrystalline silicon
`
`(110045, 0054), and that the substrate 12 is formed of monocrystalline silicon in a preferred embodiment
`
`(110053). A skilled artisan would understand that the doped layer would therefore have the same crystal
`
`structure as the substrate, and be formed on the surface of the substrate, so as to be indistinguishable
`
`from a layer formed by doping a surface of the substrate. Chan therefore teachesthe claimed structural
`
`limitations. The doped layerwould be understood to be an n+ layer by a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art.
`
`Chan teaches that the substrate 12 may be formed to be n-type, and further teaches that a BSF
`
`side, having a higher n+-doping thanthat of the substrate, may be formed at a light receiving surface, in
`
`an alternative embodiment (110030, 0057). Chan teachesthat it would have been obvious as of the
`
`effective filing date ofthe claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the
`
`crystalline silicon substrate to be an n-type crystalline silicon substrate, such that the doped layeris
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/817,551
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 5
`
`doped to have the same conductivity type as that of the substrate (110057). The simple substitution of
`
`one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR
`
`lnternationa/Co. v. Telef/exlnc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 — 97 (2007) (see MPEP §
`
`2143, B.).
`
`Per claims 13 and 17, Chan teachesa preferred thickness ofthe doped layer is less than 10 nm
`
`(110045). Chan further teaches that it is preferable to form the dopa nt concentration of the doped layer
`
`to be higher than 1X1019 cm'3 (110045). While the range of dopa nt concentrations taught by Chan
`
`overlaps the claimed range ”equal to or higher than 1 X 1017 cm” and ”1 X 1017 cm'3 to 1 X 1020 cm”,
`
`the reference does not specifically teach that an average value of the dopa nt concentration in the doped
`
`layer is in the claimed range. The dopant concentration and doped layer thickness is chosen to reduce
`
`recombination at surfaces (110031-0034). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing
`
`date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the value of the dopant
`
`concentration of the doped layer, and therefore its average value, in order to optimize re combination.
`
`”[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
`
`discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,
`
`456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective
`
`variable, without producing any new or uneXpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.)
`
`In an embodiment, the passivation layer 16 has the same conductivity type as the doped layer
`
`14 it contacts(110049), where the doped layer has been established above to have the same conductivity
`
`type as layer 14. Therefore the passivation layer of modified-Chan has a same conductivity type as the
`
`crystalline silicon substrate.
`
`Per claims 13 and 21, the solar cell further comprises a rearsemiconductor layer 22 formed on
`
`approximately a whole area of the rearsurface of the crystalline silicon substrate 14/12 (layer 22 is
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/817,551
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 6
`
`preferably formed by epitaxy to reduce recombination, 110047, 0049, 0051), the rearsemiconductor
`
`layer having a conductivity type (p-type) that is different from the crystalline silicon substrate and the
`
`passivation layer 16 in the embodiment in which the doped layer has the same conductivity type as that
`
`of the substrate (110030, 0057).
`
`Per claims 18 and 20, modified-Chan teachesthe limitations ofclaim 13. Chan teachesthat it
`
`would have been obvious as ofthe effective filing date ofthe claimed invention for a person having
`
`ordinary skill
`
`in the art to form the passivation layer 16 of uc-SizH (10052), as it would have merely
`
`required the choice of a known materialfor its art-recognized purpose. The selection of a known
`
`material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
`
`Further, Chan teachesthat it is preferred toform the passivation layer to have the same doping
`
`type as the underlying doped layer (110049). Therefore a skilled artisan would form a contact surface of
`
`the passivation layerto the first transparent conductive layer to comprise n-type uc-SizH, as forming the
`
`passivation layer with that composition is obvious.
`
`Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chan as applied to claim
`
`13 above, and further in view of US PGPub 2013/0171767 to Moslehi ll (of record).
`
`Regarding claim 19, modified-Chan teachesthe limitations of claim 13. That reference does not
`
`teach that the dopa nt concentration ofthe doped layer is homogeneous. However, it would have been
`
`obvious as ofthe effective filing date ofthe claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art
`
`to form the doped layer to have a homogeneous dopant concentration because Moslehi || teachesthat
`
`such a dopant concentration profile may provide higherefficiencies (Fig. 5, 110009, 0061, 0062).
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/817,551
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 7
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 6/7/2020 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
`
`Applicant arguesthat Chan discloses a solar cell formed by diffusing an impurity in a semiconductor
`
`substrate to form junctions and field regions, and that such structure is notably different from a
`
`heterojunction solar cell wherein a junction or field region is formed by adding a n impurity to a
`
`passivation layer. However, Chan at least considers doping by impurity diffusion to be a nonpreferred
`
`embodiment (110004-0006). The analogous doped layer 14 and rearsemiconductor layer 22 are
`
`epitaxially grown, not formed by a diffusion process (110028, 0030). Further, Chan is clear that the
`
`analogous passivation layer 16 may be doped with the same conductivity as the doped layer(110049).
`
`Therefore Chan teachesthat the claimed structure is obvious. The assertion in the argumentsthat the
`
`instant invention is a heterojunction solar cell does not impart structure or properties that distinguish
`
`the claims from the prior art. Further, a heterojunction solar cell is not claimed. Although the claims are
`
`interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
`
`See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`Applicant further asserts that modifying Chan in a wayto render the claim limitations obvious
`
`would change the principles of operation ofthat invention. However, Applicant does not provide a
`
`reference to Chan to show that such a modification would renderChan inoperable. Further, all
`
`modifications in the rejections are proposed by Chan’s disclosure, or rendered obvious by related prior
`
`art.
`
`The rejection of the claims as primafacie obvious over Chan et al.
`
`is proper.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
`
`should be directed to ERICR SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examinercan
`
`normally be reached on M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm MST.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/817,551
`Art Unit: 1726
`
`Page 8
`
`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.
`
`Ifattemptsto reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
`
`Jeffrey Barton can be reached on (571) 272-1307. The fax phone number for the organization where
`
`this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information rega rdingthe status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
`
`Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained
`
`from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available
`
`through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-
`
`my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact
`
`the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Ifyou would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-
`
`9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
`
`ERIC R. SMITH
`
`Primary Examiner
`Art Unit 1726
`
`/ER|CR SMITH/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
`
`