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 .
Contact Information
Claims 1-7 and 11-12 are currently pending. Claim 1 has been amended and claims 8-10 have been cancelled.
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 after final 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites that the dielectric layer includes a material having a refractive index of 4 or less…and includes zinc sulfide. The claims are recited in such a way that it is unclear if “and includes zinc sulfide” is modifying the dielectric layer or the material. Thus, it is unclear if the claim requires the dielectric layer to include a material and zinc sulfide (e.g., an mixture), or if “a material” is the zinc sulfide.
Given the specification does not seem to support the dielectric layer comprising a mixture of materials, the claim will be examined as “the dielectric layer includes a material having a refractive index of 4 or less…and the material includes zinc sulfide.”
Claims 2-7 and 11 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 2022/0359779). in view of Puscasu et al. (US 2007/0171120).
Regarding claims 12, Taylor discloses a photovoltaic device comprising a transparent conducting electrode layer e.g., formed of zinc oxide (0046) (instant dielectric layer), back contact layer comprising at least one MXene material (instant MXene layer), and an active layer disposed between (instant semiconductor layer) (0005).
Taylor does not teach a suitable thickness for the for the active layer.
Puscasu, in the analogous field of visible and infrared tunable stealth materials (0006), discloses device comprising at least three distinguishable layers including an intermediate layer (16) (Fig. 1). The intermediate layer comprising semiconductors such as silicon and germanium (0044). Puscasu further teaches optimizing the thickness of the intermediate layer being as thin as desired as long as electrical isolation is maintained but also thick enough to prevent electrical arcing (0060-0061).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that the thickness of the active layer is optimizable since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: applicant has persuasively argued that Taylor provides no specific teaching, suggestion, or motivation to select zinc sulfide for the transparent electrode material, failing to teach the dielectric layer as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments with regards to the combination of Taylor in view of Puscasu over claim 12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Puscasu does not recognize that the thickness of the semiconductor layer in a range of 150 nm to 900 nm affect the result.
As noted in the advisory action, a showing of optimization does not require the prior art to recognize the claimed range. In order to properly support a rejection on the basis that an invention is the result of "routine optimization", the examiner must make findings of relevant facts, and present the underpinning reasoning in sufficient detail. The articulated rationale must include an explanation of why it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range. As set forth in the final rejection, Puscasu expressly teaches optimizing the thickness to as thin as desired as long as electrical isolation is maintained but thick enough to prevent electrical arcing (0060-0061). Thus from the teachings of Puscasu, a person of ordinary skill would optimize the thickness, including within the claimed range, as Puscasu teaches the thickness is optimizable (see above) and is directed to the same layer.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781