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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endoh (EP 2372403 A1) in view of Kuroda (JP 2008090212 A).
With respect to claims 1-4, 7-10, 20 and 21, Endoh discloses an array for absorbing light radiation (see fig.18 and 22) and an absorption-based optical device (see fig.18 and 22), comprising a plurality of subwavelength dimensions inverted cones (see the contiguous inverted cones disclose in figs.17 and 18) that are arranged on a layer (see layer of fig.17 and 18; also see application in fig.22), each cone having a curved sidewall in cross-section (see the curves of fig.18), used in an absorption-based optical device (see the device of fig.18), wherein each of the cones is a truncated cone which is inverted such that its wider base faces the incoming radiation (see the orientation of fig.18), wherein the curved sidewall is convex (see the convex portion of the wall in fig.18), wherein the curved sidewall is concave (see the concave portion of the wall in fig.18). wherein the curved concave sidewall has a trumpet-like shape (see the trumpet like shape of fig.18), wherein the period between the cones is in the subwavelength light range (see the distance between the centers of the inverted cones in fig.18 and see the abstract), wherein the period between the cones is substantially in the order of a wavelength of an impinging illumination (again see the abstract), which is configured to absorb radiation in a specific spectrum or wavelength of light (disclosed by the structure of fig.18), which is configured to a limited range of spectral radiation (disclosed by the structure of 18), which is configured to absorb broadband light (disclosed by the abstract wherein pitch is determined by light environment and see discussion under “structure”), further comprising an anti-reflection coating (see the anti-reflection layer in fig.22, 1) but does not disclose wherein each of the cone bodies is a solid filed cone body.
Kuroda discloses an array for absorbing or light trapping radiation (see figs.1 and 2), comprising a plurality of subwavelength dimensions inverted cone bodies that are arranged on a layer (see the inverted cone bodies of 2 in fig.2 and 3 in fig.1), each cone body having a curved sidewall in cross-section (see 7th para. under best mode: “it is possible to be something which is 3 next curved surfaces where the side expands outside.”; also see the bell shape in fig.4), wherein each of the cone bodies is a solid-filled cone body (see the material the makes the second microstructure in fig.1 and 2), further comprising an antireflection layer (2 in fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to Endoh with the teaching of Kuroda so that each cone body having a curved sidewall in cross-section, wherein each of the cone bodies is a solid-filled cone body to reduce reflection and enhance transmission to absorbing layer.
Claims 1, 2, 9-17, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chadda (United States Patent Publication 7, 998, 877 B1) in view of Kuroda (JP 2008090212 A).
With respect to claim 1, 2, 9 -17, 20 and 21, Chadda discloses absorbing or light trapping radiation or an absorption bases optical device (see fig.1 or fig.5), which is fabricated from a semiconductor material (see the n and p layers discloses in fig.1 or fig.5),wherein the semiconductor material is selected from Silicon (see col.3, lines 35: FIG. 1 Schematic of a standard silicon solar cell showing a n and p type), GaAs, or Germanium, which is configured to absorb radiation in a specific spectrum or wavelength of light, which is configured to a limited range of spectral radiation (disclosed by the structure fig.3a and 3b ), which is configured to absorb broadband light (see solar cell structure of fig.3b), which is fabricated from a dielectric material (see layer which is fabricated from glass substrate in fig.5), said array causing an absorption of radiation in an underlying layer made from a semiconductor material (see semiconducting layers in fig.5 ), the layers, forms a photovoltaic cell (fig.1 and fig.5) but does disclose an array comprising a plurality of subwavelength dimensions inverted cones cone bodies that are arranged on a layer, each cone body having a curved sidewall in cross-section wherein each of the cones, cone bodies, together with the layer, forms a photovoltaic cell, further comprising a antireflection layer, wherein the period between the cone bodies is in the subwavelength light range, and wherein the period between the cone bodies is substantially in the order of a wavelength of an impinging illumination.
Kuroda discloses an array for absorbing or light trapping radiation (see figs.1 and 2), comprising a plurality of subwavelength dimensions inverted cone bodies (see 11th para. under best mode: “optical structure of this invention, description above 1st pitch P between microstructure, is shorter than wave length of the light”) that are arranged on a layer (see the inverted cone bodies of 2 in fig.2 and 3 in fig.1), each cone body having a curved sidewall in cross-section (see 7th para. under best mode: “it is possible to be something which is 3 next curved surfaces where the side expands outside.”; also see the bell shape in fig.4), wherein each of the cone bodies is a solid-filled cone body (see the material the makes the second microstructure in fig.1 and 2), further disclosing dielectric material fabrication (see 11th para. from mode for invention: “polyethylene”), further comprising a antireflection layer (2 in fig.1), wherein the period between the cone bodies is in the subwavelength light range (see 11th para.: “…is shorter than wave length of the light concretely the fact that it is below 380nm necessary, but it is desirable 50 - 380nm, furthermore to make inside the range 50 - 250nm desirably.”), and wherein the period between the cone bodies is substantially in the order of a wavelength of an impinging illumination (examiner notes: this is an intended use claim which the structures of fig.1 and 2 are sufficient to meet ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to Chadda with the teaching of Kuroda so that an array comprising a plurality of subwavelength dimensions inverted cones cone bodies that are arranged on a layer, each cone body having a curved sidewall in cross-section, which is fabricated from a dielectric material, said array causing an absorption of radiation in an underlying layer made from a semiconducting material; wherein each of the cones, cone bodies, together with the layer, forms a photovoltaic cell; the array further comprising a antireflection layer to reduce reflection and enhance transmission thereby improve the performance of the photovoltaic cell.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endoh (EP 2372403 A1) in view of Kuroda (JP 2008090212 A) and Stefan (WO 2007000155).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Endoh in view of Kuroda discloses the array of claim 4, but does not disclose wherein the convex sidewall has a compound parabolic body shape, or wherein convex sidewall has a parabolic shape.
Stephan shows this shape is well known in the art to light trapping (see claim 14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the array of Endoh in view of Kuroda with the teaching of Stefan so that the convex sidewall has a compound parabolic body shape, wherein convex sidewall has a parabolic shape to facilitate the absorption of light.
Claims 1, 11-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endoh (United States Patent Application Publication 2011/0235181) in view of Kuroda (JP 2008090212 A).
With respect to claims 1, 11-14 and 20, Endoh discloses an array for absorbing or light trapping radiation (see fig.1C and fig.34) and an absorption-based optical device (see fig.34), comprising a plurality of subwavelength dimensions inverted cones (see the contiguous inverted cones disclose in fig.1c) that are arranged on a layer (see bottom layer of 113 ), which is fabricated from a semiconductor material, wherein the semiconductor material is selected from silicon (see the silicon of 112), GaAs, or Germanium (see silicon of 112 in fig.34), wherein each of the cone bodies together with the layer, forms a photovoltaic cell (see fig.34) and but does not disclose wherein each of the cone bodies is a solid filed cone body wherein each cone having a curved sidewall in cross-section in the embodiment of fig.35B.
However Endoh teaches wherein each cone having a curved sidewall in cross-section in the embodiment of fig.13C
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Endoh with the teaching of alternative embodiments so that each cone has a curved sidewall in cross-section to facilitate absorption and trapping.
Endoh does not disclose not disclose wherein each of the cone bodies is a solid filed cone body.
Kuroda discloses an array for absorbing or light trapping radiation (see figs.1 and 2), comprising a plurality of subwavelength dimensions inverted cone bodies that are arranged on a layer (see the inverted cone bodies of 2 in fig.2 and 3 in fig.1), each cone body having a curved sidewall in cross-section (see 7th para. under best mode: “it is possible to be something which is 3 next curved surfaces where the side expands outside.”; also see the bell shape in fig.4), wherein each of the cone bodies is a solid-filled cone body (see the material the makes the second microstructure in fig.1 and 2), further comprising an antireflection layer (2 in fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to Endoh with the teaching of Kuroda so that each cone body having a curved sidewall in cross-section, wherein each of the cone bodies is a solid-filled cone body to reduce reflection and enhance transmission to absorbing layer.
Claims 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chadda (United States Patent Publication 7, 998, 877 B1) in view of Kuroda (JP 2008090212 A) and Todd (United States Patent Application Publication 201200865 A1).
With respect to claim 22, Chadda in view of Kuroda discloses the absorption-based optical device of claim 20, but does not disclose further comprising a filter to limit the absorption to a specific spectrum or wavelength of light.
Todd discloses a filter to limit the absorption to a specific spectrum or wavelength of light ( see para.[0030]:such as UV filters, anti-reflective layers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Chadda in view of Kuroda with the teaching of Todd so that a filter to limit the absorption to a specific spectrum or wavelength of light to enhance the durability of the photovoltaic cell.
Claims 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endoh (United States Patent Application Publication 2011/0235181) in view of Kuroda (JP 2008090212 A) and Todd (United States Patent Application Publication 201200865 A1).
With respect to claim 22, Endoh in view of Kuroda discloses the absorption-based optical device of claim 20, but does not disclose further comprising a filter to limit the absorption to a specific spectrum or wavelength of light.
Todd discloses a filter to limit the absorption to a specific spectrum or wavelength of light ( see para.[0030]:such as UV filters, anti-reflective layers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Endoh in view of Kuroda with the teaching of Todd so that a filter to limit the absorption to a specific spectrum or wavelength of light to enhance the durability of the photovoltaic cell.
Response to Arguments
With respect to claims 1 and 20, applicant argues that claims 1 and 20 are not disclosed by the Endoh and Kuroda, since they disclose an anti-reflective element and not a radiation absorbing or trapping element (see wherein Applicant claims that: while an anti-reflective array minimizes or eliminates reflection of light from a surface, a radiation-absorbing array absorbs incident radiation (light, infrared, etc.) and converts it into another form of energy (e.g., heat or electricity). Of course, a higher level of photon absorbance is desired to create more energy. Therefore, it becomes absolutely clear that an anti- reflection layer is well distinguished from a light-absorbing (or light-trapping) layer.
Examiner agrees that an anti-reflective element is not a radiation absorbing or trapping element. However, the claims disclose “an array…comprising” not an array “consisting”; therefore, the array can comprise a base or supporting layer which performs the absorption or trapping. Thus an array comprised by inverted cone bodies and a supporting layer that absorbs or trap the light, teaches the claims as disclosed above.
Secondly, the broadest reasonable interpretation only requires the array facilitate absorption and trapping to meet the limitation of “for absorbing or trapping radiation” since claim 16 explicitly recites that the array is fabricated from a dielectric material [which does not absorb or trap light] which causes “an absorbing of radiation in an underlying layer made from a semiconducting material.”
Applicant further argues with respect to Kuroda that the statement, with respect to the possibility of differentiating between curved and "straight" cones, has not been at all discussed by Kuroda, even in the context of anti-reflection, and Kuroda remains absolutely silent in this regard.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kuroda explicitly discloses in the 18 para. beneath description heading: “However, the shape of the fine structures 2 and 3 in the present invention is accurate. As long as the taper is tapered, the ridgeline shape may be a cubic curved surface whose side faces bulge outward as long as it is tapered... Thus, in the present invention, “conical” includes not only accurate cones and pyramids, but also those having side surfaces made of curved surfaces as described above, and pyramids and cones without tip projections.”
Lastly, applicant argues clearly, a conical protrusion is not an inverted cone. The concave conical, i.e., mortar-shaped, hole shape, of Kuroda is also not a solid-filled (inverted) cone body as in claims 1 and 20, as it is in fact a depressed structure "filled with air" as is also visually shown in Figs. 1 and 2 of Kuroda.
Examiner disagrees. 2 and 3 in fig.1 and 2 (a) are solid structures (see 34th para.: “As a material (base material) for forming the above structure, any material may be used as long as it is transparent and can give a fine structure by any of the methods described above. For example, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl alcohol, Polyvinylidene chloride, polyethylene terephthalate, polyvinyl chloride, polystyrene, ABS resin, AS resin, acrylic resin”) and see inverted cones in fig. 2(a), 2.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JERRY L. BROOKS whose telephone number is (571)270-5711. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:00 PM.
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, Toan Ton can be reached at 5712722303. 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.
/JERRY L BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights