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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 12th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed March 12th, 2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The 112(b) rejection of claims 1-12 and 34 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The rejections based over Luechinger et al. are maintained.
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 1-5, 7, 9-12, and 31 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.
Regrading Claim 1, Applicant recites, “the substrate each contain a group VI element”. Applicant has not disclosed a configuration where the substrate contains a group VI element. Accordingly, the claim 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 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luechinger et al. (US 2015/0017878 A1) in view of Li (CN-111299802-A). Li is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 1, as best understood by the Examiner, Luechinger et al. discloses an electrode structure in a solar cell (Fig. 1B) in a chalcogen solar cell having a photoelectric conversion layer stacked on a substrate (Paragraph 0027), wherein the electrode structure has an electric conductor on the substrate side of the chalcogen solar cell (Fig. 1B, #104) and a wiring element electrically connected to the electric conductor (Fig. 1B, #108a & Paragraph 0004), the wiring element includes a wiring member (Fig. 1B, #108a) wherein the wiring element is stacked on and bonded with the electric conductor (Fig 1B, #108a is stacked and bonded with #104 & Paragraph 0004).
Luechinger et al. discloses that the electric conductor comprises an interfacial layer of MoSe2 (Fig. 2C, #204a - Paragraph 0028 & 0031), wherein substantial regions of the electrode portion still comprise the same amount of material as when the MoSe2 was originally deposited (Fig. 6, #504a1c & Paragraph 0049). As best understood by the Examiner, this results in “the substrate contains a group VI element”. Luechinger et al. discloses the wiring element that comprises Ag (Paragraph 0068).
Luechinger et al. does not disclose that the wiring element includes a bonding layer, and that the wiring element and the electric conductor each contain a group VI element, a peak concentration of the group VI element in a concentration distribution of the Group VI element, and the bonding layer contains the group VI element and at least one of Al, Pt, Zn, and Sn
Li discloses a wiring element (Fig. 3, #1 – Page 3, Lines 49-51) comprising aluminum (Page 4, 3rd Paragraph) is welded to a bonding layer comprising Sn such that there is a “fusion” between molecular layers (Fig. 3, #4 & Page 4, 4th Paragraph) such that MoSe2 molecules are intermolecular bonded with the bonded layer (Page 4, 2nd Paragraph). Li discloses that this method of attachment is done via a ultrasonic welding process (4th Paragraph, Page 4). Li discloses that that this method of attaching to a subsequent MoSe2 layer has improved bonding force and reduced production cost (Page 4, 2nd Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the bonding techniques of Li in Luechinger et al. electrode structure for the advantages of having a configuration with improved bonding force and reduced production cost.
In regards to the limitation that “the wiring element and the electric conductor each contain a group VI element, a peak concentration of the group VI element in a concentration distribution of the group VI element is present in the bonding layer wherein the concentration distribution of the group VI element is in a stacked direction of the electric conductor and the wiring element, and the bonding layer contains the group VI element and at least one of Al, Pt, Zn, and Sn”. Applicant discloses that when an interconnector 13 comprising silver (See US PGPub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0065) is welded to a bonding layer 27 comprising at least one of Al, Pt, Zn, Sn, that these metals are easily chalcogenized via group VI elements that are inherently present in a molybdenum electrode layer (See USPGPub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0082-0083). Applicant discloses that these types of materials next to each other results in easy diffusion between the wiring element and the electric conductor when welded (See US PGPub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0120). In the instant case, it is the Examiner’s position that as evidenced by Applicant’s specification, Li electrode structure discloses the same types of materials use as Applicant, that being a wiring element comprising aluminum disposed over a bonding layer comprising Sn that is disposed on a MoSe2 layer and subjected to welding which inherently results in the Se present in MoSe2 electric conductor to shift and distribute through the Sn bonding layer and the silver interconnector as claimed by Applicant. Thus meeting the limitations, “the wiring element and the electric conductor each contain a group VI element, a peak concentration of the group VI element in a concentration distribution of the Group Vi element is present in the bonding layer, and the bonding layer contains the group VI element and at least one of Al, Pt, Zn, and Sn”.
In view of Claim 2, Luechinger et al. and Li are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Luechinger et al. teaches that the electric conductor is exposed in a position that does not overlap a photoelectric conversion layer of the chalcogen solar cell on a light-receiving surface side of the chalcogen solar cell (Fig 1B, the portion of #104a that is off to the right side and doesn’t overlap the PV conversion layers), and the wiring element is stacked on the electric conductor exposed on the light-receiving surface side (Fig. 1B, #108a).
In view of Claim 3, Luechinger et al. and Li are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 2. Luechinger et al. teaches that the electric conductor is a backside electrode layer formed on a substrate of the chalcogen solar cell (Fig. 1B, #104 & Paragraph 0004).
Li was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious for the wiring element to include a wiring member (Fig. 3, #1) and a bonding layer (Fig. 3, #4) between a backside electrode layer (Fig. 3, #3) and the wiring member (Fig. 3, #1 - Page 3, Lines 49-51 through Page 4, Lines 1-5).
In regards to the limitation that “the peak of the concentration distribution of the group VI element is shifted from an interface between the backside electrode layer and the bonding layer in a stacked direction of the backside electrode layer and the bonding layer”. Applicant discloses that when an interconnector 13 comprising silver (See US PGPub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0065) is welded to a bonding layer 27 comprising at least one of Al, Pt, Zn, Sn, that these metals are easily chalcogenized via group VI elements that are inherently present in a molybdenum electrode layer (See USPGPub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0082-0083). Applicant discloses that these types of materials next to each other results in easy diffusion between the wiring element and the electric conductor when welded (See US PGPub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0120). In the instant case, it is the Examiner’s position that as evidenced by Applicant’s specification, Li electrode structure discloses the same types of materials use as Applicant, that being a wiring element comprising silver disposed over a bonding layer comprising Sn that is disposed on a MoSe2 layer and subjected to welding which results in the Se present in MoSe2 electric conductor to shift and distribute through the Sn bonding layer and the silver interconnector as claimed by Applicant.
In view of Claim 4, Luechinger et al. and Li are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Li was relied upon to disclose a wiring element (Fig. 3, #1 – Page 3, Lines 49-51) comprising silver (Page 4, 3rd Paragraph) is welded to a bonding layer comprising Sn such that there is a “fusion” between molecular layers (Fig. 3, #4 & Page 3, 4th Paragraph) such that MoSe2 molecules are intermolecular bonded with the bonded layer (Page 4, 2nd Paragraph).
In regards to the limitation that “a combination of a material of the backside electrode layer and a material of the bonding layer form an alloy phase in a phase diagram, and a combination of a material of the bonding layer and a material of the wiring member form an alloy phase in a phase diagram”.
Applicant discloses that when an interconnector 13 comprising silver (See US PGPub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0065) is welded to a bonding layer 27 comprising at least one of Al, Pt, Zn, Sn, that these metals are easily chalcogenized via group VI elements that are inherently present in a molybdenum electrode layer (See USPGPub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0082-0083). Applicant discloses that these types of materials next to each other results in easy diffusion between the wiring element and the electric conductor when welded (See US PGPub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0120). In the instant case, it is the Examiner’s position that as evidenced by Applicant’s specification, Li electrode structure discloses the same types of materials use as Applicant, that being a wiring element comprising silver disposed over a bonding layer comprising Sn that is disposed on a MoSe2 layer and subjected to welding which results in the Se present in MoSe2 electric conductor to shift and distribute through the Sn bonding layer and the silver interconnector as claimed by Applicant. Thus, meeting the limitations, “a combination of a material of the backside electrode layer and a material of the bonding layer form an alloy phase in a phase diagram, and a combination of a material of the bonding layer and a material of the wiring member form an alloy phase in a phase diagram”.
In view of Claim 5, Luechinger et al. and Li are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Although Li discloses that the melting point of the bonding layer is equal to or higher than 230°C (Page 4, 2nd Paragraph), in regards to the limitation, “the melting point of the bonding layer is equal to or higher than 230°C”, the Examiner is treating it as a product by process claim. It has been shown that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
In view of Claim 6, Luechinger et al. and Li are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Li was relied upon to disclose that Li discloses a wiring element (Fig. 3, #1 – Page 3, Lines 49-51) comprising silver (Page 4, 3rd Paragraph) is welded to a bonding layer comprising Sn such that there is a “fusion” between molecular layers (Fig. 3, #4 & Page 3, 4th Paragraph) such that MoSe2 molecules are intermolecular bonded with the bonded layer (Page 4, 2nd Paragraph).
In regards to the limitation that “the peak of the concentration distribution of the group VI element is present in the bonding layer in the stacked direction of the backside electrode layer”.
Applicant discloses that when an interconnector 13 comprising silver (See US PGPub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0065) is welded to a bonding layer 27 comprising at least one of Al, Pt, Zn, Sn, that these metals are easily chalcogenized via group VI elements that are inherently present in a molybdenum electrode layer (See USPGPub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0082-0083). Applicant discloses that these types of materials next to each other results in easy diffusion between the wiring element and the electric conductor when welded (See US PGPub of Instant Application – Paragraph 0120). In the instant case, it is the Examiner’s position that as evidenced by Applicant’s specification, Li electrode structure discloses the same types of materials use as Applicant, that being a wiring element comprising silver disposed over a bonding layer comprising Sn that is disposed on a MoSe2 layer and subjected to welding which results in the Se present in MoSe2 electric conductor to shift and distribute through the Sn bonding layer and the silver interconnector as claimed by Applicant such that, “the peak of the concentration distribution of the group VI element is present in the bonding layer in the stacked direction of the backside electrode layer”.
In view of Claim 7, Luechinger et al. and Li are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Luechinger et al. teaches that the backside electrode layer consists of molybdenum (Paragraph 0027).
Li was relied upon to disclose a wiring element (Fig. 3, #1 – Page 3, Lines 49-51) comprising silver (Page 4, 3rd Paragraph) is welded to a bonding layer comprising Sn such that there is a “fusion” between molecular layers (Fig. 3, #4 & Page 3, 4th Paragraph) such that MoSe2 molecules are intermolecular bonded with the bonded layer (Page 4, 2nd Paragraph).
In regards to the limitation that “the number of atoms of the group VI element contained in the bonding layer is larger than the number of atoms of the group VI element contained in the backside electrode layer in a region corresponding to the bonding layer”. It is the Examiner’s position that pure molybdenum would have no selenium present as disclosed by Luechinger et al. while Li was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious that selenium a group VI element is present in the bonding layer. Therefore, modified Luechinger et al. discloses “the number of atoms of the group VI element contained in the bonding layer is larger than the number of atoms of the group VI element contained in the backside electrode layer in a region corresponding to the bonding layer”
In view of Claim 8, Luechinger et al. and Li are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Li discloses that the bonding layer comprises Sn (Fig. 3, #4 & Page 3, 4th Paragraph)
In view of Claim 9, Luechinger et al. and Li are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Luechinger et al. teaches that the backside electrode layer consists of molybdenum (Paragraph 0027).
Li was relied upon to disclose a wiring element (Fig. 3, #1 – Page 3, Lines 49-51) comprising silver (Page 4, 3rd Paragraph) is welded to a bonding layer comprising Sn such that there is a “fusion” between molecular layers (Fig. 3, #4 & Page 3, 4th Paragraph) such that MoSe2 molecules are intermolecular bonded with the bonded layer (Page 4, 2nd Paragraph). Accordingly, modified Luechinger et al. teaches that the backside electrode layer comprises the metal molybdenum which is also present in the bonding layer.
In view of Claim 10, Luechinger et al. and Li are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Li discloses that the wiring member contains a part of a metal element of the bonding layer (Page 3, 4th Paragraph & Page 4, 2nd Paragraph).
In view of Claim 11, Luechinger et al. and Li are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Luechinger et al. teaches a wiring member that comprises Al and Ag (Paragraph 0068 – Al-Cu-Ag ribbon). Li was relied upon to disclose a bonding layer that undergoes “fusion” between the molecular layers (Page 3, 4th Paragraph), thus it is the Examiner’s position that the bonding layer would “contain Ag and Al” from the adjacent wiring member.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luechinger et al. (US 2015/0017878 A1) in view of Li (CN-111299802-A) in view of Tourino et al. (US 2017/0040479 A1). Li is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 12, Luechinger et al. and Li are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Modified Luechinger et al. does not disclose that a material of the wiring member contains an iron-nickel-cobalt alloy.
Tourino et al. discloses that a wiring member that contains an iron-nickel-cobalt alloy KOVAR advantageously ensures reliable mechanical stability over a range of temperatures (Paragraph 0029). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use the material as disclosed by Tourino et al. as the material for a wiring member as disclosed by modified Luechinger et al. for the advantage of using a material that ensures reliable mechanical stability over a range of temperatures.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luechinger et al. (US 2015/0017878 A1) in view of Li (CN-111299802-A) in view of Mulholland “Ultrasonic Tinning of Component Leads”. Li is mapped to the English machine translation provided by the EPO.
In view of Claim 34, Luechinger et al. and Li are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Modified Luechinger et al. does not disclose the thickness of the bonding layer is 2-3 microns.
Mulholland discloses that the thickness of a bonding layer is 2 microns (Page 17, 2nd Paragraph). Mulholland discloses that ultrasonic tinning was proved feasible on component lead materials which had heretofore been difficult or impossible to soldier (Page 17, 5th Paragraph) and is seen as a substantial improvement (Page 17, 3rd Paragraph). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to use the thickness of a bonding layer as disclosed by Mulholland as the thickness of Li’s bonding layer such that the thickness of the bonding layer is 2 microns for a substantially improved configuration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Li’s ultrasonic welding would not end up with the diffusion of Applicant’s parallel gap method. The Examiner respectfully points out to Applicant that Li discloses that the melting point of the bonding layer (Fig. 3, #4) is lower than 250°C which is widely used in the welding field (page 4, 2nd Paragraph) and that the bonding layers composition can be adjusted such that the melting point is below 250°C ( page 4, 4th paragraph) because this is beneficial to aggravate the movement of atoms after friction and heat generation during the welding process, thereby forming a fusion between molecular layers. Additionally, the metal radius of tin and copper atoms present in the bonding layer are very small, and thus enter easily into MoSe2 molecules during ultrasonic welding to achieve intermolecular bonding. Applicant admits themselves in the most recent response that diffusion does occur “In the case of ultrasonic welding, there is a possibility of diffusion of both elements near the bonding surface, but unlike in the case of fusion bonding such as resistance welding, the chalcogen element does not diffuse widely into the solid-phase molybdenum layer 3 and the solid-phase metal layer 4” (See Arguments submitted 11/21/2025 – Page 11, Last Paragraph). Claim 1 does not distinguish between whether the diffusion occurring is “only at the surface” or “diffused widely”. Claim 1 simply requires the Group VI element to diffuse into the surface of the bonding layer and thus meeting the limitation, “a peak concentration of the Group VI element in a concentration distribution of the Group Vi element is present in the bonding layer in a stacked direction of the electric conductor and the wiring element”. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726