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 .
Summary
This is the response to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 12/26/2025.
Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miyazaki et al. (US 2015/0136221).
Addressing claims 1 and 9, Miyazaki discloses a photoelectric conversion element (solar cell element) and a method for manufacturing a photoelectric conversion element, comprising:
forming a photoelectric conversion portion (2+3+6) configured to perform photoelectric conversion (inherent function of the photoelectric conversion portion),
forming a first infrared emission layer (layer 13 adjacent to the passivation layer 6 in combination with the third oxide layer 31; layer 13 includes a composite of zirconium oxide or hafnium oxide with aluminum oxide, which are materials that have infrared emissivity; additionally, layer 31 is made of either zirconium oxide or hafnium oxide [0036], which are also materials that have infrared emissivity; therefore, collectively the combination of layer 13 and 31 corresponds to the claimed first infrared emission layer) in direct contact with the photoelectric conversion portion (fig. 5 shows the layer 13+31 is formed directly on the passivation layer 6 of the photoelectric conversion portion) using a first material selected from hafnium oxide or zirconium oxide [0036], and
forming a second infrared emission layer (the combination of the interface layer 13 and layer 32) on and in direct contact with the first infrared emission layer (fig. 5, [0036]) using a second material selected from at least one of SiO2 and Al2O3 (layer 13 includes aluminum oxide and layer 32 is made of aluminum oxide, which has infrared emissivity; therefore, the combination of the layer 13 and 32 corresponds to the claimed second infrared emission layer).
Addressing claim 2, layer 5 in fig. 3 is the claimed substrate on which the photoelectric conversion portion is formed.
Addressing claim 3, paragraphs [0021-0022] disclose the photoelectric conversion portion includes a semiconductor substrate (2 or 3).
Addressing claim 5, fig. 5 shows the first infrared emission layer (13+31) is stacked films in which two or more types of the first material are stacked (layers 13 and 31 both include hafnium oxide material, the claim does not require the types from two layers to be different).
Addressing claim 7, fig. 5 shows the second infrared emission layer (13+32) is stacked films in which layers including two types of the second material are stacked (layers 13 and 32 both include aluminum oxide material, the claim does not require the types from two layers to be different).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazaki (US 2006/0243320) in view of Terakado (EP0087217). Further evidence is provided by Sun et al.
Addressing claims 1 and 9, Shimazaki discloses a photoelectric conversion element (1, figs. 1-2) and a method for manufacturing a photoelectric conversion element, comprising:
a photoelectric conversion portion (thin-film solar cell 3) configured to perform photoelectric conversion (it is the inherent function of the solar cell);
a first infrared emission layer (SiO2 layer 6) that is formed on and is in direct contact with the photoelectric conversion portion (layer 5 is optional, which implies the SiO2 layer 6 is formed on and is in direct contact with the photoelectric conversion portion 3), and
a second infrared emission layer Al2O3 that is formed on and in direct contact with the first infrared emission layer.
Shimazaki is silent regarding the first infrared emission layer includes the claimed materials.
Terakado discloses metal oxides such as ZrO2 or SiO2 are used as infrared radiative layer (page 10 lines 5-6).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the first infrared emission layer of Shimazaki by substituting the known SiO2 infrared radiative material with the known ZrO2 infrared radiative material of Terakado in order to obtain the predictable result of forming an infrared emissivity enhancing coating for releasing heat from the solar cell to maintain desired cell efficiency (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143). Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.07); in instant situation, the selection of the known ZrO2 material, in place of the known infrared radiative SiO2 material, based on its suitability for its intended use as an infrared radiative layer as shown by Terakado would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Addressing claim 2, fig. 2 of Shimazaki shows the photoelectric conversion portion 3 is formed on a substrate 2.
Addressing claim 4, paragraph [0036] of Shimazaki discloses the first infrared emission layer has a thickness between 1000 to 3000 nm that falls within the claimed range.
Addressing claim 6, paragraph [0036] of Shimazaki discloses the second infrared emission layer has a thickness from 100 to 500 nm, which falls within the claimed range.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
With regard to the 35 USC 102 rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 9 as being anticipated by Miyazaki, the Applicants argued Miyazaki does not teach or suggest “a first infrared emission layer … in direct contact with the photoelectric conversion portion configured to perform photoelectric conversion” as claimed because the first infrared emission layer of Miyazaki is in direct contact with the passivation layer 6, which is not configured to perform photoelectric conversion. The argument is not persuasive when the limitation is read in light of the specification. The rejection equates the combination of the semiconductor layers 2, 3 and the passivation layer 6 as the structural equivalence to the claimed photoelectric conversion portion configured to perform photoelectric conversion similarly to the way in which the photoelectric conversion portion 12 of current application is composed of the first electrode layer 21, the photoelectric conversion layer 22, the buffer layer 23 and the second electrode layer 24. Fig. 1 of current application shows that the first infrared emission layer 13a is in direct contact with the second electrode 24, which is not configured to perform photoelectric conversion. Therefore, the limitation “a first infrared emission layer that is formed on and is in direct contact with the photoelectric conversion portion” when read in light of the specification means the first infrared layer is in contact with a layer of the photoelectric conversion portion that is not, in and of itself, configured to perform photoelectric conversion but is a part of the photoelectric conversion portion configured to perform photoelectric conversion. This is satisfied by the teaching of Miyazaki since the first infrared emission layer is in contact with the passivation layer 6 layer of the photoelectric conversion portion configured to perform photoelectric conversion. For the reasons above, Examiner maintains the position that claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 9 are anticipated by Miyazaki.
With regard to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 9 as being unpatentable over the disclosure of Shimazaki in view of Terakado, the Applicants argued that since the SiO2 layer of Shimizaki is required in combination with the Al2O3 layer, substituting the SiO2 material of Shimizaki with the ZrO2 material of Terakado would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. The argument is not persuasive because the intended purpose of the layer SiO2 is for infrared emissivity or is used as an infrared radiative layer. Terakado discloses that the ZrO2 material has the same infrared radiative property as that of SiO2. In other words, the ZrO2 material serves the same intended purpose of providing infrared radiative property as the SiO2 material when they are used in an infrared radiative layer. Therefore, preponderance of evidence indicates that substituting the known SiO2 material with the known ZrO2 material to serve the same intended purpose as an infrared radiative layer as discussed in the proposed modification would not render the device of Shimizaki unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Furthermore, the preponderance of evidence indicates reasonable expectation of success that the resulting photoelectric conversion element would function as intended since both SiO2 and ZrO2 materials serve the same intended purpose as infrared radiative materials. For the reasons above, Examiner maintains the position that claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 9 are unpatentable over the disclosure of Shimizaki in view of Terakado.
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 BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 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 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.
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 01/12/2026