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 .
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.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atwater et al. (US 2011/0083722) in view of Kayes et al. (US 2018/0019359).
Regarding claim 1, Atwater discloses a solar cell in Figure 5D comprising a partial cell (532) being formed from a direct semiconductor (GaAs is a direct semiconductor, [104]), which is the lowest partial cell of the device in a direction facing away from the light (Figure 5D), and an intermediate layer (534) being arranged on a side of the lower partial cell (532) facing away from the light such that the lower partial cell (532) is on a side of the intermediate layer (534) facing the light (Top in Figure 5D, [106]),
an optical element (textured back reflector 540) comprising a lower mirror element (metal reflector layer 542) arranged on a side of the intermediate layer (543) facing away from the light (Bottom in Figure 5D, [108]-[109], metal reflector layer can be made of gold or silver and reads on a “lower mirror element” which is consistent with the instant specification), the optical element (textured back reflector 540) comprising a partial element (reflector protrusions in the form of metallic islands 544) having a plurality of structural elements (544) arranged in a lateral direction directly or indirectly on the side of the intermediate layer facing away from the light (Figure 5D and [108]-[109]), and the partial element (544) and the lower mirror element (542) are formed from a same material ([22], [108]-[109] and claim 41).
Atwater does not explicitly disclose a multiple solar cell comprising: at least two partial cells having an upper partial cell facing light and a lower partial cell facing away from the light, an upper bandgap of the upper partial cell being greater than a lower bandgap of the lower partial cell.
Kayes discloses a multiple solar cell in Figure 3 comprising at least two partial cells (subcells 601, 1101), at least one of the partial cells being formed from a direct semiconductor (see III-V direct semiconductor materials in Figure 3, [44] and [36]-[37]), having an upper partial cell (601) facing light and a lower partial cell (1101) facing away from the light (Figure 3, [44] and [36]-[37]), an upper bandgap of the upper partial cell (601) being greater than a lower bandgap of the lower partial cell (1101) ([44] and Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add at least one additional partial cell on top of the partial cell of Atwater to form a multiple solar cell having an upper partial cell facing light and a lower partial cell facing away from the light, an upper bandgap of the upper partial cell being greater than a lower bandgap of the lower partial cell, as taught by Kayes, because III-V multijunction solar cells were well known in the art at the time the invention was filed and it would amount to nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Atwater additionally discloses that the structural elements have a mean spacing that is between 150 nm-500 nm ([14]).
Additionally, the lower partial cell of modified Atwater is made of GaAs ([100]) which has a refractive index of about 3.62 and a cutoff absorption wavelength of 875 nm. Thus, the spacing value would be 875 nm/3.62 =241 nm and a mean spacing less than or equal to 313 nm would read on the claim limitation “the structural elements have a mean spacing which is less than or equal to 1.3 times a spacing value resulting from a ratio of a wavelength of an absorption band assigned to the lower bandgap of the lower partial cell to a refractive index of the lower partial cell”.
Modified Atwater does not disclose the specifically claimed range for the mean spacing of the structural elements; however, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re
Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Modified Atwater discloses the claimed mean spacing of the structural elements as discussed above. Atwater additionally discloses that the structural elements are made of silver or gold ([13]) which is the same material used in the instant specification (Page 21, last paragraph).
Since the structural elements of Atwater have the same composition and mean spacing as the structural elements claimed and disclosed in the instant specification, the structural elements will necessarily display the claimed functions of “the mean spacing of the structural elements is selected such that radiation outside absorption bands assigned to the upper bandgap and the lower bandgap is directly reflected at the optical element toward a side of the multiple solar cell facing the light”.
As discussed in MPEP 2112.01, “When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, modified Atwater discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Atwater additionally discloses that at least one of the partial cells is formed from a group III-V semiconductor material ([11]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Atwater discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Atwater additionally discloses that the lower partial cell has a thickness of less than 1200 nm ([11]).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Atwater discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kayes additionally discloses at least one additional partial cell having an additional bandgap between the upper and lower bandgaps arranged between the upper and lower partial cells (Figure 7F, [45] and [62], the device can have more than two subcells which would read on a subcell between the upper and lower subcells as claimed).
Regarding claim 6, modified Atwater discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Atwater additionally discloses wherein the lower mirror element (metal reflector layer 542) is formed from a metal ([108]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Atwater discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Atwater additionally discloses that the partial element comprises a square grating, a cross grating, a hexagonal grating, a point grating or as a tailored disorder structure (metallic islands read on a point grating, [13]-[14]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Atwater discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Atwater additionally discloses that the structural elements are arranged regularly ([13]-[14], metallic islands have a predetermined spacing which reads on “arranged regularly”).
Regarding claim 9, modified Atwater discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Atwater additionally discloses that the structural elements comprise at least one of squares, grating lines, grating points, or scattering centers (metallic islands read on grating points and scattering centers, [13]-[14]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Atwater discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kayes additionally discloses an antireflection layer (1102) arranged on a side facing the light above the upper partial cell (Figure 3, [18] and [42]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Atwater discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kayes additionally discloses that the optical component is provided and the optical component has a transmission - weighted with a photon number of radiation - for radiation having an energy greater than or equal to the lower bandgap of at least 85% (Kayes Figure 3, [18] and [42], the antireflection layer 1102 reads on an optical component that transmits radiation as claimed).
Regarding claim 12, modified Atwater discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kayes additionally discloses that the partial cells are contacted by contacts at the side facing away from the light (Kayes, Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified Atwater discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Atwater additionally discloses that the structural elements have a mean spacing that is between 150 nm-500 nm ([14]). Modified Atwater does not explicitly disclose that the mean spacing of the structural elements is at least one of less than or equal to 1.2 times the spacing value or greater than or equal to 0.8 times the spacing value and wherein the mean spacing is between 230 nm and 450 nm; however, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 15, modified Atwater discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Atwater additionally discloses that a region of the spacing between the structural elements (metallic islands 544) is filled by at least one of a dielectric material, a semiconductor material, or a resist (layer 536 between the metallic islands is a semiconductor material, [107] and Figure 5D).
Regarding claim 23, modified Atwater discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kayes additionally discloses that the multiple solar cell is part of at least one of extraterrestrial systems, terrestrial concentrator systems, flying objects, vehicles, or thermophotovoltaics ([78], the device reflects and concentrates light).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Atwater and Kayes does not render obvious the claimed invention including the limitation “wherein the mean spacing of the structural elements is selected such that radiation outside absorption bands assigned to the upper and lower bandgaps is directly reflected at the optical element toward a side of the multiple solar cell facing the light”, as required by claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Modified Atwater discloses the claimed mean spacing of the structural elements as discussed above. Atwater additionally discloses that the structural elements are made of silver or gold ([13]) which is the same material used in the instant specification (Page 21, last paragraph).
Since the structural elements of Atwater have the same composition and mean spacing as the structural elements claimed and disclosed in the instant specification, the structural elements will necessarily display the claimed functions of “the mean spacing of the structural elements is selected such that radiation outside absorption bands assigned to the upper bandgap and the lower bandgap is directly reflected at the optical element toward a side of the multiple solar cell facing the light”.
As discussed in MPEP 2112.01, “When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “wherein the mean spacing is selected such that radiation that lies outside absorption bands associated with the upper and lower bandgaps will reflect toward the light-incidence side such that this reflected light leaves the multiple solar cell” and “wavelengths outside of the bands to be absorbed by the partial cells are selectively reflected and emitted out of the device through the light-incidence side”) are not recited in the rejected claims. 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). The claims do not require that any light leaves the solar cell. The claims simply require that the “mean spacing of the structural elements is selected such that radiation outside absorption bands assigned to the upper and lower bandgaps is directly reflected at the optical element toward a side of the multiple solar cell facing the light”. Any reflection toward a side of the solar cell facing the light would read on the claimed reflection whether it stays trapped in the cell or exits the cell. Further, “a side of the multiple solar cell facing the light” is not limited to the outermost front side of the solar cell.
Further, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The structural elements of modified Atwater necessarily perform the claimed function, as discussed in the rejection above. The arguments to the light trapping or recycling disclosed in Kayes are not persuasive since the claim functions are necessarily present in the device of modified Atwater.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LINDSEY A BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/LINDSEY A BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728