DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments to the Claims, Remarks, and Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. 1.132 filed June 4, 2025.
Claims 1-3, 5-22, 24, and 25 are currently pending while claims 10-22 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “a plurality of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) distributed and oriented in three dimensions throughout the metal matrix”.
The specification, as originally filed, does not evidence applicant had in possession an invention including a plurality of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) distributed and oriented in three dimensions throughout the metal matrix.
The specification does not describe or discuss carbon nanotubes distributed and oriented in three dimensions throughout the metal matrix. Dependent claims are rejected for dependency.
Claim 24 recites, “a plurality of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) not oriented primarily in a planar or stacked planar orientation throughout the metal matrix”.
The specification, as originally filed, does not evidence applicant had in possession an invention including a plurality of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) not oriented primarily in a planar or stacked planar orientation throughout the metal matrix.
The specification does not describe or discuss carbon nanotubes not oriented primarily in a planar or stacked planar orientation throughout the metal matrix.
Claim 25 recites, “a metal matrix composite contact comprising…an amount of lead greater than 0 wt%”.
The specification, as originally filed, does not evidence applicant had in possession an invention including a metal matrix composite contact comprising an amount of lead greater than 0 wt%.
The specification does not discuss or describe the full scope of a metal matrix composite contact which comprises “an amount of lead greater than 0 wt%”.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (WO 2016/205722 as a reference under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) with citations to equivalent U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0175218 A1) in view of Konno et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0185548 A1).
With regard to claims 1 and 5, Han et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell comprising:
a silicon substrate (305, Fig. 3A-G and see [0042] “silicon substrate”); and
a metal matrix composite contact disposed on the silicon substrate (such as metal matrix composite 325 disposed on the silicon substrate 305, Fig. 3A-G; see [0045] teaching “The carbon nanotubes form a network and the second metal layer, i.e., silver layer 320, is at least partially embedded in the network”; the metal matrix composite 325 is cited to read on the claimed “metal matrix composite contact” because it is an electrically conductive silver metal matrix composite with carbon nanotubes and functions as an electrode contact; see Fig. 3A-G depicting the cited metal matrix composite contact 325 disposed directly on the cited substrate 305), the metal matrix composite contact comprising,
a metal matrix (see [0045] teaching “silver layer 320, is at least partially embedded in the network” wherein the silver at least partially embedded in the network is cited to read on the claimed “metal matrix”), and
a plurality of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) distributed and oriented randomly in three dimensions throughout the metal matrix (see [0045] teaching “The carbon nanotubes form a network and the second metal layer, i.e., silver layer 320, is at least partially embedded in the network” and see Fig. 3A-G, Fig. 7A, Fig. 8A-D, Fig. 10B, Fig. 14, and Fig. 16 which provides for the cited network of carbon nanotubes distributed and oriented randomly in three dimensions throughout the cited metal matrix, recall the silver at least partially embedded in the network; see [0045-0048], [0052], and [0055] teaching various deposition techniques, such as spray coating/nanospreader, which is cited to provide for carbon nanotubes distributed and oriented randomly in three dimensions in the silver at least partially embedded in the network); wherein
the metal matrix of the metal matrix composite contact electrically connects to the substrate (see Fig. 3G depicting electrical contact between the silver at least partially embedded in the network of the cited metal matrix composite contact and the substrate 305).
Han et al. does not teach an anti-reflection coating disposed on the substrate.
However, Konno et al. teaches a photovoltaic cell (see Fig. 5) and teaches an anti-reflection coating 2 can be formed directly on a substrate of a solar cell (18/1/4, Fig. 1) and a metal contact disposed directly on the anti-reflection coating (20a, Fig. 5 disposed directly on the anti-reflection coating 2), the metal contact electrically connects to the substrate through the anti-reflection coating (see Fig. 5).
Konno et al. teaches the anti-reflection coating also serves to passivate the light incident side surface (see [0016]).
Thus, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the photovoltaic cell of Han et al. to include the anti-reflection coating of Konno et al. because it would have provided for passivation of the light incident side surface.
Han et al. does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of CNTs is 0.1 wt% of the metal matrix composite contact.
However, Han et al. recognizes the concentration of the plurality of CNTs in the metal matrix composite contact as a result effective variable directly affecting the surface coverage (see [0048-0049]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of the plurality of CNTs in the metal matrix composite contact in the cell of Han et al. and arrive at the claimed range for wt% through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the surface coverage.
With regard to claim 2, independent claim 1 is obvious over Han et al. in view of Konno et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. The claimed “wherein modulus of toughness of the metal matrix composite contact is 16% to 200% greater compared to a metal contact consisting essentially of the metal without the plurality of carbon nanotubes” is understood to implicitly be bound to the claimed structure of the metal matrix composite contact comprising a metal and a plurality of carbon nanotubes distributed in the metal, otherwise the functional language of “wherein modulus of toughness of the metal matrix composite contact is 16% to 200% greater compared to a metal contact consisting essentially of the metal without the plurality of carbon nanotubes” would be unbound to any structure in the claim or the claim requires additional essential components of the invention not recited in the claim. The cited metal matrix composite contact of Han et al. is cited to read on the claimed “wherein modulus of toughness of the metal matrix composite contact is 16% to 200% greater compared to a metal contact consisting essentially of the metal without the plurality of carbon nanotubes” because it includes a structure comprising the cited metal and the cited plurality of carbon nanotubes distributed in the metal (recall rejection of claim 1 above).
With regard to claim 3, independent claim 1 is obvious over Han et al. in view of Konno et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Han et al. discloses wherein
the metal matrix composite contact can electrically bridge a gap less than 50 µm wide (the cited metal matrix composite contact is cited to read on the claimed “can electrically bridge a gap less than 50 µm wide” because it is structurally capable of electrically bridging a gap less than about 50 µm wide, such as gap that is less than the length of the cited multi-walled carbon nanotubes which is also less than 50 µm wide; additionally see [0052]).
With regard to claim 6, independent claim 1 is obvious over Han et al. in view of Konno et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Han et al. discloses wherein
the metal of the metal matric composite contact comprises silver (see [0045] teaching silver layer 320).
With regard to claim 7, independent claim 1 is obvious over Han et al. in view of Konno et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above.
Han et al. does not disclose wherein the plurality of CNTs have a length from 10 µm to 100 µm.
However, the length of the CNTs is a result effective variable directly affecting the size of gaps and ability to maintained electrical conductivity of the composite across the gaps (see [0052-0053] teaching ability to maintain electrical conductivity with carbon nanotubes which can bridge 10 to 42 µm wide gaps).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the length of the CNTs in the cell of Han et al. and arrive at the claimed range for length through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the size of gaps and ability to maintained electrical conductivity of the composite across the gaps.
With regard to claim 8, independent claim 1 is obvious over Han et al. in view of Konno et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Han et al. discloses wherein
the metal matrix composite contact is a gridline or busbar in a photovoltaic device (see Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 9, dependent claim 8 is obvious over Han et al. in view of Konno et al. under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed above. Han et al. discloses wherein
the plurality of CNTs are randomly oriented with respect to the gridline or busbar (see Fig. 2 and, for example, Fig. 7A).
With regard to claim 24, Han et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell comprising:
a silicon substrate (305, Fig. 3A-G and see [0042] “silicon substrate”); and
a metal matrix composite contact disposed on the silicon substrate (such as metal matrix composite 325 disposed on the silicon substrate 305, Fig. 3A-G; see [0045] teaching “The carbon nanotubes form a network and the second metal layer, i.e., silver layer 320, is at least partially embedded in the network”; the metal matrix composite 325 is cited to read on the claimed “metal matrix composite contact” because it is an electrically conductive silver metal matrix composite with carbon nanotubes and functions as an electrode contact; see Fig. 3A-G depicting the cited metal matrix composite contact 325 disposed directly on the cited substrate 305), the metal matrix composite contact comprising,
a metal matrix (see [0045] teaching “silver layer 320, is at least partially embedded in the network” wherein the silver at least partially embedded in the network is cited to read on the claimed “metal matrix”), and
a plurality of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) not oriented primarily in a planar or stacked planar orientation throughout the metal matrix (see [0045] teaching “The carbon nanotubes form a network and the second metal layer, i.e., silver layer 320, is at least partially embedded in the network” and see Fig. 3A-G, Fig. 7A, Fig. 8A-D, Fig. 10B, Fig. 14, and Fig. 16 which provides for the cited network of carbon nanotubes not oriented primarily in a planar or stacked planar orientation throughout the cited metal matrix as they are depicted as oriented randomly in three dimensions throughout the cited metal matrix, recall the silver at least partially embedded in the network; see [0045-0048], [0052], and [0055] teaching various deposition techniques, such as spray coating/nanospreader, which is cited to provide for carbon nanotubes not oriented primarily in a planar or stacked planar orientation throughout the silver at least partially embedded in the network); wherein
the metal matrix of the metal matrix composite contact electrically connects to the substrate (see Fig. 3G depicting electrical contact between the silver at least partially embedded in the network of the cited metal matrix composite contact and the substrate 305).
Han et al. does not teach an anti-reflection coating disposed on the substrate.
However, Konno et al. teaches a photovoltaic cell (see Fig. 5) and teaches an anti-reflection coating 2 can be formed directly on a substrate of a solar cell (18/1/4, Fig. 1) and a metal contact disposed directly on the anti-reflection coating (20a, Fig. 5 disposed directly on the anti-reflection coating 2), the metal contact electrically connects to the substrate through the anti-reflection coating (see Fig. 5).
Konno et al. teaches the anti-reflection coating also serves to passivate the light incident side surface (see [0016]).
Thus, at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the photovoltaic cell of Han et al. to include the anti-reflection coating of Konno et al. because it would have provided for passivation of the light incident side surface.
Han et al. does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of CNTs is 0.1 wt% of the metal matrix composite contact.
However, Han et al. recognizes the concentration of the plurality of CNTs in the metal matrix composite contact as a result effective variable directly affecting the surface coverage (see [0048-0049]).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the amount of the plurality of CNTs in the metal matrix composite contact in the cell of Han et al. and arrive at the claimed range for wt% through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05); especially since it would have led to optimizing the surface coverage.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoldas et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,251,285) in view of Cola et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0190579 A1).
With regard to claim 25, Yoldas et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell comprising:
a silicon substrate (1, Fig. 1);
an anti-reflection coating disposed on the silicon substrate (7 depicted in Fig. 1 as disposed on the cited silicon substrate 1); and
a contact disposed directly on the anti-reflection coating (6 depicted in Fig. 1 as disposed directly on side surfaces of the cited anti-reflection coating 7), and wherein
the contact electrically connects to the substrate through the anti-reflection coating (as depicted in Fig. 1, the cited contact 6 electrically connects to the cited substrate 1 through the cited anti-reflection coating 7).
Yoldas et al. does not disclose wherein the contact is a metal matrix composite contact.
However, Cola et al. discloses composite materials for electrodes (see [0143]). Cola et al. is analogous art because, like applicant and Yoldas et al., Cola et al. is concerned with electrodes.
Cola et al. teaches a metal matrix composite contact (see [0009] teaching “Metal-carbon nanostructure composites”) comprising a metal matrix, an amount of lead greater than 0% (see [0009] teaching “metal alloy” including “silver” and “lead”), a plurality of carbon (CNTs) throughout the metal matrix, distributed and oriented randomly in three dimensions, and not oriented primarily in a planar or stacked planar orientation (see Abstract teaching “nanotubes which are uniformly dispersed within the metal matrix of the composite”; see Fig. 1E); wherein the plurality of CNTs is 0.1 wt% to 10 wt% of the metal matrix composite contact (see [0082]).
Cola et al. teaches the composite material provides for improved electrical, thermal, and mechanical properties (see Abstract).
Thus, at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the composite material of Cola et al. for the material of the contact of Yoldas et al. because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07) and because it would have provided for improved electrical, thermal, and mechanical properties of the contact.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 4, 2025, including the Declaration Under 37 C.F.R. 1.132, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in the response that the disclosed method, centrifugal mixer and/or three-roll mill type mixer, using Dupont PV3N2 having a viscosity of 200-300 Pas necessarily results in a metal matric composite having carbon nanotubes distributed and oriented randomly in three dimension throughout the metal matrix. However, this argument is not persuasive.
While a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that carbon nanotubes mixed with the metal paste Dupont PV3N2 by a planetary centrifugal mixer and/or three-roll-mill mixer may provide for carbon nanotubes distributed and oriented in three dimensions, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand the generally disclosed planetary centrifugal mixer and/or three-roll-mill type mixer using Dupont PV3N2 as necessarily providing for carbon nanotubes distributed and oriented in three dimensions.
The resultant mixture is also re-suspended in solvent, the excess solvent removed under heat, and the paste deposited.
The specification does not discuss or describe the carbon nanotubes as distributed and oriented in three dimensions as a result of the exemplified manufacturing process.
In contrasts, the specification depicts the carbon nanotubes distributed and oriented in one dimension (see Fig. 3).
Applicant argues in the response that the generally disclosed spray coating or nano-spreading method of Han ‘218 necessarily results in primarily planer orientation of the carbon nanotubes. However, this argument is not persuasive.
The generally disclosed methods of Han ‘218 do not necessarily results in “primarily planer orientation” of the carbon nanotubes.
Han ‘218 depicts carbon nanotubes not oriented primarily in a planar or stacked planar orientation (see Fig. 3A-G, Fig. 7A, Fig. 8A-D, Fig. 10B, Fig. 14, and Fig. 16d).
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 DUSTIN Q DAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5120. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6:00 AM to 2:00 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, 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.
/DUSTIN Q DAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 September 23, 2025