DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action for 17/733,733, filed 4/29/2022, which is a CIP of PCT/US2020/058317, filed 10/30/2020, which claims priority to provisional application 62/928,277, filed 10/30/2019 and which is a CIP of 16/526,644, filed 7/30/2019, which claims priority to provisional application 62/711,979, filed 7/30/2018, after the request for continued examination filed 12/2/2024.
Claims 1-16 and 18-21 are pending, and are considered herein.
The rejections of record are respectfully maintained.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-13, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liau, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0330992 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Liau teaches a method of annealing a deployed solar cell array (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0025], [0032], [0035]-[0040], further described in Liau, Claims 1-3). This array is “deployed” because Liau teaches that the method is performed on modules installed at “high tilted angles” (paragraph [0032]).
The method of Liau comprises illuminating the deployed solar cell array with a specific wavelength of electromagnetic radiation from a controlled source of the electromagnetic radiation 430/460 (paragraphs [0036], [0032]).
The method of Liau comprises annealing the solar array using the electromagnetic radiation (i.e. exposing the array to the radiation, Fig. 3, paragraphs [0032] and [0035]-[0040]).
Liau teaches that the irradiation wavelength in the process of his invention is 100-2000 nm (paragraph [0036]), which corresponds to an energy range of 0.62-12.4 eV.
The instant specification recognizes the band gap of silicon to be 1.1 eV (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, Liau teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein an energy corresponding to the specific wavelength is below a bandgap level of silicon.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. In the instant case, the claimed range of “is below a bandgap level of silicon” (i.e. below 1.1 eV) overlaps with the taught range of 0.62-12.4 eV.
Liau teaches that the solar cells in the array each comprise a silicon lattice (paragraphs [0003]-[0004) and a mobile species in silicon (i.e. hydrogen, paragraph [0025]).
Liau teaches that the specific wavelength corresponds to a process specific to the mobile species, i.e. diffusion of hydrogen within the silicon lattice, paragraph [paragraph [0025]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 4, wherein the mobile species in silicon comprises hydrogen.
In reference to Claim 5, Liau teaches that the process of his invention comprises exciting hydrogen ions so that they can diffuse to defects or impurities to neutralize charges or passivate defects (paragraph [0025]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the processes comprises enhancing binding of the mobile species (hydrogen) to defects or locations in the silicon lattice.
In reference to Claims 6-7, Liau teaches that the process of his invention comprises exciting hydrogen ions so that they can diffuse to defects or impurities to neutralize charges or passivate defects (paragraph [0025]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 6, wherein the processes comprises diffusion of the mobile species (i.e. hydrogen) in silicon in the silicon lattice.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the specific wavelength corresponds to an activation energy for the mobile species in silicon to diffuse from one site to another site in the silicon lattice.
In reference to Claim 9, as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Liau teaches that the irradiation wavelength in the process of his invention is 100-2000 nm (paragraph [0036]), which corresponds to an energy range of 0.62-12.4 eV.
The instant specification recognizes the near-infrared region as being 0.8 eV-1.2 eV (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, Liau teaches the limitations of Claim 9, wherein the specific wavelength is in the near-infrared region, because the near infrared region (0.8 eV-1.2 eV) lies within the energy range of 0.62-12.4 eV.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. In the instant case, the claimed range of “the near infrared region” (i.e. 0.8 eV-1.2 eV) lies within the taught range of 0.62-12.4 eV.
In reference to Claim 10, as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Liau teaches that the irradiation wavelength in the process of his invention is 100-2000 nm (paragraph [0036]), which corresponds to an energy range of 0.62-12.4 eV.
The instant specification recognizes the band gap of silicon to be 1.1 eV (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, Liau teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the energy of the specific wavelength enables photons comprising the electromagnetic radiation to penetrate throughout the silicon lattice, because the instant specification recognizes photons with energies less than 1.1 eV allow for the claimed penetration (paragraph [0043]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. In the instant case, the energy level below which the claimed penetration occurs (i.e. below 1.1 eV).overlaps with the taught range of 0.62-12.4 eV.
In reference to Claim 11, Liau teaches that the illuminating step comprises tuning the controlled source of the electromagnetic radiation to a range of wavelengths encompassing the specific wavelength, because the method includes modulating the wavelength using controller 460 according to real requirements (paragraph [0032]).
In reference to Claim 12, Liau teaches that the illuminating step comprises illuminating the deployed solar cell array with a predetermined spectral bandwidth of the electromagnetic radiation, the spectral bandwidth comprising the specific wavelength (paragraphs [0032] and [036]).
In reference to Claim 13, Liau does not teach that the source of the radiation is necessarily a laser.
However, he teaches that one of two suitable sources of radiation includes a laser (paragraph [0035]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used a laser as the source of radiation in the method of Liau, because Liau teaches that this is a suitable radiation source for the method of his invention.
Using a laser as the source of radiation in the method of Liau teaches the limitations of Claim 13, wherein the source of radiation is a laser.
In reference to Claim 15, Liau does not teach that the source of the radiation is necessarily a broadband source.
However, he teaches that one of two suitable sources of radiation includes visible light (paragraph [0035]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used visible light as the source of radiation in the method of Liau, because Liau teaches that this is a suitable radiation source for the method of his invention.
Using visible light as the source of radiation in the method of Liau teaches the limitations of Claim 15, wherein a source of radiation is a broadband source, because “visible light” encompasses a broad number of wavelengths.
In reference to Claim 16, Liau does not teach that the source of the radiation is necessarily not a broadband source.
However, he teaches that one of two suitable sources of radiation includes a laser (paragraph [0035]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used a laser as the source of radiation in the method of Liau, because Liau teaches that this is a suitable radiation source for the method of his invention.
Using a laser as the source of radiation in the method of Liau teaches the limitations of Claim 16, wherein the source is not a broadband source.
In reference to Claim 18, Liau does not teach that the illuminating step is repeated using different specific wavelengths.
However, Liau teaches that the illumination time (paragraph [0038]) and the wavelength (paragraph [0036]) of the light source can all be controlled by the control unit 460 (paragraph [0032]), so that users can modulate these variables, according to real requirements (paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have been motivated to optimize the hydrogenation process of Liau by modulating both the illumination time and the wavelength of the irradiated light, because Liau teaches that these are controllable variables in the method of his invention.
It is further the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at a method in which scanning is repeated at different wavelengths, because of Liau’s disclosure that the irradiation time and wavelength can be changed, based on real requirements.
In reference to Claim 20, Liau teaches that the method of his invention recovers the efficiency of a solar module by passivating defects (paragraph [0025]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 20, wherein “the method comprises: transforming a defect structure into a desired metastable state; and transforming the metastable defect structure into another state in which it is longer electrically active, thereby preventing it from acting as a recombination center that reduces electrical performance of the deployed solar cell array.”
Claims 3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liau, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0330992 A1), in view of Weinberg, et al. (Applied Physics Letters, 44 (11), 1 June 1984).
In reference to Claim 3, Liau does not teach that the mobile species comprises lithium.
To solve the same problem of providing silicon solar cells application, Weinberg teaches that incorporating lithium dopants into silicon solar cells that comprise significantly decreases the degradation caused by irradiation (column 1, paragraph 2, page 1072), and that these cells exhibit radiation resistance superior to that of equivalent cells with no lithium dopants (column 2, paragraph 2, page 1072).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have included lithium dopants into the silicon solar cells of Liau, based on Weinberg’s disclosure of the benefits that result from incorporating lithium dopants into silicon solar cells.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 3, wherein the mobile species in silicon comprises lithium.
In reference to Claim 5, the instant specification recognizes that the diffusion barrier for Li from one site to another in a silicon lattice is 0.8-1.2 eV (paragraph [0043]).
As described in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Liau teaches that the irradiation wavelength in the process of his invention is 100-2000 nm (paragraph [0036]), which corresponds to an energy range of 0.62-12.4 eV.
Therefore, modified Liau teaches the limitations of Claim 5, wherein the process comprises enhancing binding or unbinding of the mobile species in silicon from defects, locations, or dopants in the silicon lattice, because 0.8-1.2 eV lies within the irradiated range of 0.62-12.4 eV.
In reference to Claim 6, the instant specification recognizes that the diffusion barrier for Li from one site to another in a silicon lattice is 0.8-1.2 eV (paragraph [0043]).
As described in the rejection of Claim 1 above, Liau teaches that the irradiation wavelength in the process of his invention is 100-2000 nm (paragraph [0036]), which corresponds to an energy range of 0.62-12.4 eV.
Therefore, modified Liau teaches the limitations of Claim 6, wherein the process comprises enhancing diffusion of the mobile species in silicon in the silicon lattice, because 0.8-1.2 eV lies within the irradiated range of 0.62-12.4 eV.
Modified Liau further teaches the limitations of Claim 7, wherein the specific wavelength corresponds to an activation energy for the mobile species in silicon to diffuse from one site to another site in the silicon lattice, because 0.8-1.2 eV lies within the irradiated range of 0.62-12.4 eV.
Modified Liau further teaches the limitations of Claim 8, wherein the activation energy is between about 0.8 eV and about 1.2 eV, because 0.8-1.2 eV lies within the irradiated range of 0.62-12.4 eV.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liau, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0330992 A1), in view of Wenham, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0111333 A1).
In reference to Claim 14, Liau does not teach that the source of the electromagnetic radiation is an LED. Instead, he teaches that the radiation source may suitably be a laser (paragraph [0035]).
To solve the same problem of light-treating silicon solar cells to promote hydrogen diffusion within the cell, Wenham teaches that both lasers (paragraph [0242]) and LEDs (paragraph [0229]) are suitable light sources for irradiating silicon solar cells for the purpose of promoting hydrogen diffusion within the cells.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used an LED as the light source in the process of Liau, based on the disclosure of Wenham.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 14, wherein a source of electromagnetic radiation is a LED.
Claims 2, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liau, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0330992 A1), in view of Khan, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0146576 A1).
In reference to Claim 2, Liau does not teach that the method comprises pointing the solar cell array from the sun.
To solve the same problem of irradiating a solar cell to improve its efficiency (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0019]-[0021]), Khan teaches that such processes may be suitably performed in darkness or under ambient light (paragraph [0037]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the process of Liau so that it occurs while the solar cell array is pointing away from the sun, because Khan teaches that irradiation processes used to improve solar cell device performance (as in Liau) may be performed in darkness or ambient light. It is the Examiner’s position that the disclosure of Khan renders obvious all configurations in which a solar cell array is in darkness, e.g. during night, during times in which the array is positioned away from the sun, and during periods of solar eclipse.
In reference to Claim 19, Liau does not teach that the method of his invention comprises applying and removing electrical bias to force current flow and/or generation of heat inside the solar cells.
To solve the same problem of irradiating a solar cell to improve its efficiency (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0019]-[0021]), Khan teaches a process in which a solar cell is irradiated (via light generator 122, paragraph [0019]) and biased using a pulsed current or voltage (paragraph [0020]) to provide the benefit of improving device performance and decreasing performance variation between cells (Abstract, paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the process of Liau to include the biasing process of Khan, to achieve the taught benefits of improving device performance and decreasing performance variation between cells.
Modifying the process of Liau to include the biasing process of Khan, in which the solar cell electrodes are biased via a pulsed current or voltage, teaches the limitations of Claim 19, wherein the method comprises applying and removing electrical bias to force current flow and/or generation of heat inside the solar cells.
In reference to Claim 21, Liau does not teach that the method is performed when the solar cell array is in eclipse.
To solve the same problem of irradiating a solar cell to improve its efficiency (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0019]-[0021]), Khan teaches that such processes may be suitably performed in darkness or under ambient light (paragraph [0037]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the process of Liau so that it occurs while the solar cell array is pointing away from the sun, because Khan teaches that irradiation processes used to improve solar cell device performance (as in Liau) may be performed in darkness or ambient light. It is the Examiner’s position that the disclosure of Khan renders obvious all configurations in which a solar cell array is in darkness, e.g. during night, during times in which the array is positioned away from the sun, and during periods of solar eclipse.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments submitted 6/30/2025 are not persuasive.
Liau contains a broad disclosure of irradiating a silicon solar cell with radiation having a wavelength between 100-2000 nm (paragraph [0036]), which corresponds to an energy range of 0.62-12.4 eV.
The instant specification recognizes the band gap of silicon to be 1.1 eV (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore the Examiner respectfully maintains the position that Liau teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein an energy corresponding to the specific wavelength is below a bandgap level of silicon.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. In the instant case, the claimed range of “is below a bandgap level of silicon” (i.e. below 1.1 eV) overlaps with the taught range of 0.62-12.4 eV.
The Applicant argues that the breadth of the wavelength range disclosed by Liau renders the rejection under Liau improper.
This argument is not persuasive. The wavelength range taught by Liau encompasses less than two orders of magnitude, and is substantially narrower than the claimed range “an energy corresponding to the specific wavelength is below a bandgap level of silicon.”
The Applicant further argues that “there is no actual teaching whatsoever in Liau of below-bandgap photons.” This argument is not persuasive, and does not accurately reflect the disclosure of Liau. Liau explicitly teaches that the wavelength range of 100-2000 nm is suitable in the method of his invention (paragraph [0036]), which includes wavelength ranges corresponding to energy levels below the bandgap of silicon.
Applicant argues that Liau is not enabling for the use of an irradiation wavelength below the bandgap of silicon, because Liau fails to provide a specific example of the use of wavelength having this energy range.
However, the absence of an example having an irradiation wavelength corresponding to an energy below a bandgap of silicon is not, by itself, sufficient to establish that Liau does not enable the use of an irradiation wavelength corresponding to an energy below a bandgap of silicon. Applicant has not provided any specific reasoning or evidence which establishes that, in view additional factors such as the state of the prior art, the level of ordinary skill in the art and the level of predictability in the art, one would not have been motivated to try any wavelength within the broad range of 100-2000 nm disclosed by Liau, as the irradiation wavelength in the method of Liau.
Moreover, if Applicant is of the position that, in view of such additional factors, Liau’s disclosure is not enabled for the use of an irradiation wavelength corresponding to an energy below a bandgap of silicon, it may be necessary to consider whether the instant specification is enabling for the full scope of the claimed invention. The instant claims are not limited to any wavelength range, and encompass the use of any wavelength with an energy below the band gap of silicon.
In contrast, the only specific wavelength range cited in the instant specification includes wavelengths corresponding to less than 1.12 eV (paragraph [0042]), with no embodied examples of the use of such a wavelength range to achieve the desired results.
If absence of an embodied example were considered sufficient to establish a lack of enablement, Applicant’s disclosure would not be considered enabling for the use of the full range of wavelengths having energies less than the band gap of silicon, and therefore, would not be considered enabling for the full scope of the claimed invention.
The Applicant further appears to attempt to distinguish the “actual teachings” of Liau (which the Applicant interprets as the embodied examples of Liau) from the broader disclosure of Liau of the use of irradiation wavelengths from 100-2000nm.
All arguments to this effect are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully maintains the position that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have been motivated to try any wavelength within the broad range of 100-2000nm disclosed by Liau, as the irradiation wavelength in the method of Liau, thus rendering the claims unpatentable over Liau.
Finally, the Applicant has not provided a persuasive showing of secondary considerations sufficient to overcome the obviousness-type rejection under Liau.
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 SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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 on 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.
/SADIE WHITE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721