DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Notes
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Species A (corresponding to the claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 02/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Restriction Requirement has failed to show that the claims of Group I, II, and III are mutually exclusive, further, the Restriction Requirement has failed to provide reasons for insisting on the restriction as being necessary. This is not found persuasive. As outlined in the previous restriction requirement filed on 12/29/2025, inventions Group I and Group II are directed to distinct products. Group I requires “a PV solar cell stack, having a width= A, disposed above the second layer; a blocking diode stack, having a width = C, disposed above the second layer; a first vertical trench, having a width = B, extending down into the second layer and located in between the PV solar cell stack and the integrated, monolithic blocking diode stack; a first metal contact, having a width = E, disposed on a portion of a top surface of the PV solar cell stack; and a second metal contact, having a width = C, disposed completely across a top surface of the blocking diode stack; and wherein E < A, E < F, F < A, B < C, B < A, A < D, C < D, A = E + F and D = A + B + C”, and Group II requires “a triple-junction PV solar cell stack, having a width= A, comprising: a third layer, having a width = A, comprising an n-doped first semiconductor material disposed above the second layer; a fourth layer, having a width = A, comprising an p-doped second semiconductor material disposed above the third layer; a fifth layer, having a width = A, comprising an n-doped second semiconductor material disposed above the fourth layer; a sixth layer, having a width = A, comprising a p-doped third semiconductor material disposed above the fifth layer; a seventh layer, having a width = A, comprising an n-doped third semiconductor material disposed above the sixth layer; wherein the triple-junction PV solar cell stack is disposed above the second layer; and further comprising: an integrated, monolithic blocking diode stack, having a width = C, disposed above the second layer comprising: a third layer, having a width = C, comprising an n-doped first semiconductor material disposed above the second layer; a fourth layer, having a width = C, comprising an p-doped second semiconductor material disposed above the third layer; a fifth layer, having a width = C, comprising an n-doped second semiconductor material disposed above the fourth layer; a sixth layer, having a width = C, comprising a p-doped third semiconductor material disposed above the fifth layer; a seventh layer, having a width = C, comprising an n-doped third semiconductor material disposed above the sixth layer; an eighth layer, having a width = C, comprising an n-doped second semiconductor material disposed above the seventh layer; and a ninth layer, having a width = I, comprising an p-doped second semiconductor material disposed above a portion of the eighth layer; a first trench, having a width = B, extending down into the second layer, wherein the first trench is disposed in between the triple-junction PV solar cell stack and the integrated, monolithic blocking diode stack; a first metal contact, having a width = G, disposed above a portion of a top surface of the seventh layer; and a second metal contact, having a width = E, disposed above the third layer; a third metal contact, having a width = I, disposed above and completely across the ninth layer; a fourth metal contact, having a width = K, disposed above a portion of the eighth layer; a second trench, having a width = J, extending down into the eighth layer, and disposed in between the ninth layer and the fourth metal contact; a third trench, having a width = D, extending down into the third layer, and disposed in between the integrated, monolithic blocking diode stack and the second metal contact; a first conductor electrically connecting the second metal contact to the fourth metal contact; and wherein A < F, D < C, B < A, B < C, G < A, I < C, K < C, J < C, G < H, H < A; A = G + H, C = I + J + K, and F = A + B + C + D + E”, which are mutually exclusive. And, since the inventions between Group I and Group III, and between Group II and Group III are directed to combination and subcombination, Examiner does not need to show mutually exclusive between the inventions. And, restriction for examination purposes as indicated in the office action is proper because all these inventions listed in the office action are independent or distinct for the reasons given in the restriction requirement and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reason(s) apply: (a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; (b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; (c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). Therefore, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is made FINAL.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicants timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/27/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if 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, and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a width = D” in line 3. It is unclear whether the claimed “a width = D” is identical to or a different feature from the claimed “a width = D” in line 2. For the purpose of office action, the recitation will be treated as if it recites “the width = D”. All claims which depend on clam 1 are rejected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “the integrated, monolithic blocking diode stack” in line 8 and in line 14, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this office action, the recitation will be treated as if it recites “the blocking diode stack”. All claims which depend on clam 1 are rejected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “a width = C” in line 11. It is unclear whether the claimed “a width = C” is identical to or a different feature from the claimed “a width = C” in line 6. For the purpose of office action, the recitation will be treated as if it recites “the width = C”. All claims which depend on clam 1 are rejected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “the integrated, monolithic blocking diode stack” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this office action, the recitation will be treated as if it recites “the blocking diode stack”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “the integrated, monolithic blocking diode stack” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this office action, the recitation will be treated as if it recites “the blocking diode stack”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “a width = A” in line 1. It is unclear whether the claimed “a width = A” is identical to or a different feature from the claimed “a width = A” in claim 1. For the purpose of office action, the recitation will be treated as if it recites “the width = A”. All claims which depend on clam 7 are rejected by virtue of dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “a width = A” in line 2 and in line 4, respectively. It is unclear whether the claimed “a width = A” is identical to or a different feature from the claimed “a width = A” in claim 1. For the purpose of office action, the recitation will be treated as if it recites “the width = A”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “a width = A” in line 2 and in line 4, respectively. It is unclear whether the claimed “a width = A” is identical to or a different feature from the claimed “a width = A” in claim 1. For the purpose of office action, the recitation will be treated as if it recites “the width = A”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEUSEL (US 20160260860 A1).
Regarding claim 1, MEUSEL teaches a photovoltaic (PV) solar cell with an integrated, monolithic blocking diode (see the multi-junction solar cell with an integrated, monolithic protection diode; see Fig. 2), comprising:
a first layer, having a width = D, comprising a conductive metal (see the Au/Ag layer have a width = D; see Fig. 2 attached below);
a second layer, having a width = D, disposed above the first layer, and comprising a p-doped first semiconductor material (see the p-Ge layer having a width = D disposed above the Au/Ag layer, and comprising a p-doped Ge material; see Fig. 2 attached below);
a PV solar cell stack, having a width= A, disposed above the second layer (see the p-GaInAs/n-GaInAs stack having a width = A, disposed above the p-Ge layer; see Fig. 2 attached below);
a blocking diode stack, having a width = C, disposed above the second layer (see the protection diode structure SD with the p-GaInAs/n-GaInAs stack, having a width = C, disposed above the p-Ge layer; see Fig. 2 attached below);
a first vertical trench, having a width = B, extending down into the second layer and located in between the PV solar cell stack and the integrated, monolithic blocking diode stack (see the mesa trench MG, having a width = B, extending down into the p-Ge layer and located in between the p-GaInAs/n-GaInAs stack and the protection diode structure SD; see Fig. 2 attached below);
a first metal contact, having a width = E, disposed on a portion of a top surface of the PV solar cell stack (see the left AuZn/Ag/Au metal contact, having a width = E, disposed on a portion of a top surface of the p-GaInAs/n-GaInAs stack; see Fig. 2 attached below); and
a second metal contact, having a width = C, disposed completely across a top surface of the blocking diode stack (see the right AuZn/Ag/Au metal contact, having a width = C, disposed completely across a top surface of the protection diode structure SD; see Fig. 2 attached below);
wherein the PV solar cell stack comprises an active solar width, having a width = F (The p-GaInAs/n-GaInAs stack comprises the active solar width, having a width = F; see Fig. 2 attached below);
wherein the PV solar cell stack and the integrated, monolithic blocking diode stack are both disposed above the second layer (see the discussion above and Fig. 2 attached below); and
wherein E < A, F < A, B<A ([0010] the multi-junction solar cell occupies the largest part by far, preferably over 90% of the wafer surface, whereas the protection diode structure is arranged at one of the wafer corners. In a plan view of the wafer surface, both structures are arranged next to one another and are separated by the mesa trench), A < D, C < D, A = E + F and D = A + B + C (see the discussion above and Fig. 2 attached below).
PNG
media_image1.png
562
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the claimed “E < F”, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that when the width E of the first AuZn/Ag/Au metal contact increases, the charge collection efficiency increases but the power generation efficiency of the p-GaInAs/n-GaInAs stack decreases, and when the width F of the active solar width increases, the charge collection efficiency decreases but the power generation efficiency of the p-GaInAs/n-GaInAs stack increases. As the charge collection efficiency and the power generation efficiency are variables that can be modified by adjusting said ratio of E and F, the precise ratio of E and F would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ratio of E and F cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the ratio of E and F in the apparatus of MEUSEL to obtain the desired balance between the charge collection efficiency and the power generation efficiency (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding the claimed “B < C”, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that when the width B of the mesa trench MG increases, the area of the protection diode structure SD decreases and the protection diode structure SD does not work properly, and when the width B of the mesa trench MG decreases, the solar cell and the protection diode structure SD are not effectively separated from each other. As the area and the separation are variables that can be modified by adjusting said ratio of B and C, the precise ratio of B and C would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ratio of B and C cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the ratio of B and C in the apparatus of MEUSEL to obtain the desired balance between the area and the separation (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 2, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
MEUSEL teaches the first semiconductor material comprises germanium (see the p-Ge layer).
Regarding claim 3, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
MEUSEL teaches the PV solar cell stack comprises a same number of layers as the integrated, monolithic blocking diode stack (see the rejection of claim 1 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
MEUSEL teaches the PV solar cell stack comprises fewer layers than the integrated, monolithic blocking diode stack (Alternatively, the protection diode structure SD comprises p-GaInAs/n-GaInAs/TD/p-GaInP stack; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
MEUSEL teaches the PV solar cell stack comprises more layers than the integrated, monolithic blocking diode stack (Alternatively, the p-GaInAs/n-GaInAs/TD/p-GaInP/n-GaInP stack corresponds to the claimed “PV solar cell stack”; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
MEUSEL teaches the second metal contact is disposed directly above the second layer, thereby forming a Schottky-type diode (The right AuZn/Ag/Au metal contact is disposed directly above the p-Ge layer and forms a Schottky-type diode; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Applicant is directed above for a full discussion as applied to claim 1.
MEUSEL teaches a third layer, having a width = A, disposed above the second layer, wherein the third layer comprises an n-doped first semiconductor material (see the n-Ge layer, having a width = A, disposed above the p-Ge layer, wherein the n-Ge layer comprises an n-doped Ge material; see Fig. 2 attached in the rejection of claim 1).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAE-SIK KANG whose telephone number is 571-272-3190. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am – 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew T. Martin can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAE-SIK KANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights