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 .
Response to Amendments
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 05/20/2026, in which: claims 1-20 are amended; and the rejection of the claims are traversed. Claims 1-20 are currently pending an Office action on the merits as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al, US 20130118546, in view of Patel et al, US 20130327378.
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses : A method of designing and fabricating a four junction solar cell including a first solar subcellar, a second solar subcell ,a third solar subcell and an upper fourth solar subcell for deployment in space in AMO spectra in a specific earth orbit characterized by a predetermined temperature and radiation environment comprising(Multijunction sub cells with four, five or more sub cells with methodology for determining parameters based on simulations[0011]: simulating with a computer program the effect of the amount of radiation and the defined temperature on a plurality of first, second, third and upper fourth solar subcell candidates(Simulations to determine design and efficiencies of multijunction solar cells with 4, 5, or 6 subcells [0052]); and identifying a selection of the composition and band gaps of the second solar subcell, the third solar subcell and/or the upper fourth solar subcell candidates that optimizes the efficiency of the solar cell at the defined predetermined time and the defined temperature(III-AsNV material for solar cells to be tailored so that a wide range of lattice constants and band gaps may be obtained and optimized [0047] with simulations at temperatures of 25 to 90 degrees Celsius [0052]). providing a defined predetermined time and defined temperature in the range of 40 to 100 Centigrade after initial deployment(simulations at temperatures 25 to 90 Celsius, 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)),
Jones does not disclose : the beginning of life (BOL), wherein the defined predetermined time to the end of life (EOL) is from one to twenty-five years after the BOL; determining the amount of radiation to be experienced by the solar cell between BOL and EOL in a specific earth orbit; such selection being designed not to maximize the efficiency at BOL but to increase the solar cell efficiency at the EOL while disregarding the solar cell efficiency achieved at the BOL, such that the selection has a solar cell efficiency at the BOL that is less than a solar cell efficiency at the BOL that would be achieved if the selection were designed to maximize the solar cell-efficiency at the BOL.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Patel teaches : the beginning of life (BOL), wherein the defined predetermined time to the end of life (EOL) is from one to twenty-five years after the BOL(Multi-junction subcell optimized for end of life AM0 space environment of at least 15 years [0009]); determining the amount of radiation to be experienced by the solar cell between BOL and EOL in a specific earth orbit(optimize subcells for radiation resistance at end of life [0023]).
With the teachings above, the limitations “ such selection being designed not to maximize the efficiency at BOL but to increase the solar cell efficiency at the EOL while disregarding the solar cell efficiency achieved at the BOL, such that the selection has a solar cell efficiency at the BOL that is less than a solar cell efficiency at the BOL that would be achieved if the selection were designed to maximize the solar cell-efficiency at the BOL” is considered intended use. To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teachings of Patel to Jones to tailor sub cell compositions to target a specific life cycle of a multijunction solar cell for space application (Patel [0025]).
Regarding claim 7, Jones as modified by Patel discloses : A method as defined in claim 1.
Jones teaches : wherein the amount of radiation 1 MeV electron equivalent fluence of 1x 1015 electrons/cm2(Intensity of simulation may be equivalent to one sun [0053] or multiple suns [0062]).
Regarding claim 10, Jones as modified by Patel discloses : A method as defined in claim 1.
Jones further teaches : wherein the specific earth orbit is either a low earth orbit (LEO) or geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO)(Designed for operation in space without the influence of planetary atmosphere such as satellites [0145]).
Regarding claim 12, Jones as modified by Patel discloses : A method as defined in claim 1.
Jones teaches : wherein the identifying further comprises determining the open circuit voltage, the short circuit density, the doping level, and the thickness of the solar subcell candidates(Fig. 6, #III-AsNV Alloy, #(Al)InGaAs, #(Al)InGaP[0084]. Table 1a-4b to include short circuit current and open-circuit voltage, with exponential or linear doping profile [0120], and thickness of subcells to run optimizing procedure for bandgaps and material ratios in alloys [0011]).
Regarding claim 13, Jones as modified by Patel discloses : A method as defined in claim 1.
Jones teaches : wherein a consideration of the parameter Eg/q-Voc associated with the solar cell is computed and utilized in the identifying step(Table 1a-4b to include simulations of subcells with data to include open circuit voltage and fill factor [0062]).
Regarding claim 14, Jones as modified by Patel discloses : A method as defined in claim 1.
Jones teaches : wherein the defined predetermined time is[[of ]]fifteen years, the defined temperature is 700 C, and the selection has a solar cell efficiency at the EOL of at least 24.4%(Devices were simulated to survive the equivalent of 390 years [0050] and simulated in the range of 25 to 90 degrees Celsius [0052] with efficiencies ranging above 24.4% as shown in Fig. 8. The simulations used in Jones may be optimized to what is claimed. To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Regarding claim 15, Jones as modified by Patel discloses : A method as defined in claim 1.
Patel teaches : wherein the identifying step is performed such that the selection has a solar cell efficiency at the BOL that is the minimum, but not the maximum, efficiency of the solar cell with respect to the entire time period of deployment from the BOL to the EOL(Efficiency at end of life better than beginning of life [0025]).
Claims 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al, US 20130118546 in view of Patel et al, US 20130327378 in further view of Lee et al, US 20110220190.
Regarding claim 2, Jones as modified by Patel discloses : A method as defined in claim 1.
Jones teaches : further comprising after the identifying step; providing a germanium growth substrate(solar cells grown on germanium[0004]); forming the first solar subcell over or in the growth substrate(Fig. 6, #Ge incorporated subcell [0084]); growing the second solar subcell over a lattice mismatched with respect to the growth substrate and having a band gap in the range of 1.2 to 1.35 eV(#III-AsNV alloy 0.9-1.3 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. 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); growing the third solar subcell over the second solar subcell and having a band gap in the range of approximately 1.61 to 1.8 eV; growing the upper fourth solar subcell over the third solar subcell(#(Al)InGaAs 1.4-1.7 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. 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), and having a band gap in the range of 1.95 to 2.20 eV(#(Al)InGaP 1.9-2.2 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. 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); Jones as modified by Patel does not disclose : growing a graded interlayer over the growth substrate; wherein the graded interlayer is compositionally graded to lattice match the growth substrate on one side and the second solar subcell on the other side, wherein the graded interlayer is composed of a III-V compound semiconductor comprising As, P, N, or Sb and of having an in-plane lattice parameter throughout its thickness that is greater than or equal to an in-plane lattice parameter of the growth substrate.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches : growing a graded interlayer over the growth substrate; wherein the graded interlayer is compositionally graded to lattice match the growth substrate on one side and the second solar subcell on the other side(Fig. 1, #14, where #14 is further defined with #141 and #149, where #141 has the same lattice constant as #12 and #149 has the same lattice constant as #16 [0012]), wherein the graded interlayer is composed of a III-V compound semiconductor comprising As, P, N, or Sb and of having an in-plane lattice parameter throughout its thickness that is greater than or equal to an in-plane lattice parameter of the growth substrate(#141 may be selected from a group consisting of InGaAs, GaAs, AlGaAs, InGaP, and AlGaInP and #149 may be comprised of GaAs or InGaP).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teachings of Lee to Jones and Patel to include the buffer layers of Lee since Jones is open to the idea of buffer layers in a multijunction solar cell (Jones, [0072]).
Regarding claim 6, Jones as modified Patel and Lee discloses : A method as defined in claim 2, wherein the third solar subcell has a band gap of approximately 1.73 eV(Fig. 6, #(Al)InGaAs [0084]) and the upper fourth subcell has a band gap of approximately 2.10 eV(#(Al)InGaP [0084]).
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).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 8, 9, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al, US 20130118546, in view of Patel et al, US 20130327378 in further view of Lee et al, US 20110220190, in further view of Wanlass, US 20060144435.
Regarding claim 3, Jones as modified by Patel and Lee discloses : A method as defined in claim 2.
Jones teaches : wherein: the first solar subcell is composed of germanium(Fig. 6, Bottom subcell is a Ge subcell [0084]); the second solar subcell is composed of indium gallium arsenide(#III-AsNV alloy is a III-AsNV subcell [0084]); the third solar subcell is composed of a semiconductor compound including at least indium, gallium, arsenic, and phosphorus, or the compound (aluminum) indium gallium arsenide(#(Al)InGaAs is (Al)InGaAs or (Al)GaInPAs [0084]); the upper fourth solar subcell is composed of a semiconductor compound including at least aluminum, indium and phosphorus(#(Al)InGaP is an (Al)InGaP subcell [0084]); or the compound indium gallium phosphide;
Jones as modified by Patel and Lee does not disclose : the graded interlayer is composed of (InxGai-x)yAli-yAs with 0<x<1, and 0<y<1.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wanlass teaches : the graded interlayer is composed of (InxGa1-x)yAl1-yAs with 0 < x < 1, and 0 < y < 1(Fig. 2, AlP GaAs/Ge, GaP, GaAs, InP, AlSb, GaSb, InSb, InAs, Si, and Ge are all compositions of subcells and buffer layers that can be modified to change the lattice constant and bandgap [0034-0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine experimentation, the composition of subcells and graded interlayers of a solar cell to obtain the desired balance of bandgap and lattice constant, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 4, Jones at modified by Patel, Lee and Wanlass discloses : A method as defined in claim 3.
Jones teaches in another embodiment : further comprising growing a tunnel diode over the growth substrate wherein the graded interlayer is grown over the tunnel diode(all subcells may be connected to each other by tunnel junctions[0079]).
Regarding claim 8, Jones as modified by Patel and Lee discloses : A method as defined in claim 2.
Jones as modified by Patel and Lee does not disclose : wherein the identifying is performed by an analysis of test results by independently incrementally adjusting one or more of the interdependent variables including comprising composition of a solar subcell layer, thickness of the solar subcell layer, doping of the solar subcell layer, and doping profile of the solar subcell layer in the second, third and/or upper fourth solar subcell candidates.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wanlass teaches : wherein the identifying is performed by an analysis of test results by independently incrementally adjusting one or more of the interdependent variables including comprising composition of a solar subcell layer, thickness of the solar subcell layer, doping of the solar subcell layer, and doping profile of the solar subcell layer in the second, third and/or upper fourth solar subcell candidates(Fig. 2, AlP GaAs/Ge, GaP, GaAs, InP, AlSb, GaSb, InSb, InAs, Si, and Ge are all compositions of subcells and buffer layers that can be modified to change the lattice constant and bandgap [0034-0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine experimentation, the composition of subcells and graded interlayers of a solar cell to obtain the desired balance of bandgap and lattice constant, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 9, Jones as modified by Patel and Lee discloses : A method as defined in claim 2.
Jones as modified by Patel and Lee does not discloses : wherein the identifying comprises execution of a computer program that simulates the effect of radiation on the first, second and third solar subcells.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wanlass teaches : wherein the identifying comprises execution of a computer program that simulates the effect of radiation on the first, second and third solar subcells(Fig. 2, AlP GaAs/Ge, GaP, GaAs, InP, AlSb, GaSb, InSb, InAs, Si, and Ge are all compositions of subcells and buffer layers that can be modified to change the lattice constant and bandgap [0034-0036]).
Jones as modified by Patel, Lee and Wanlass teaches : wherein the identifying comprises execution of a computer program that simulates the effect of radiation on the first, second and third solar subcells(radiation testing to examine effects of degradation in space environments).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine experimentation by using data from simulated effects of radiation on solar cells, the composition of subcells and graded interlayers of a solar cell to obtain the desired balance of bandgap and lattice constant, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 19, Jones discloses : A method of fabricating a four junction solar cell for deployment in space in AMO spectra in a specific earth orbit characterized by a predetermined temperature and radiation environment comprising: providing a defined predetermined time and defined temperature in the range of 40 to 100 Centigrade after initial deployment(Simulations of effects of radiation on multijunction subcells at temperatures 25 to 90 degrees Celsius [0052] 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), determining the amount of radiation to be experienced by the solar cell between BOL and EOL in a specific earth orbit(Simulations of radiation of III-AsNV subcells for an operation in a space environment without the influence of planetary atmosphere [0145]); simulating the effect of the amount of radiation and the defined temperature on a simulated specimen solar cell comprising including a first, second and third solar subcell candidates formed by a computer programmed simulation comprising(Simulations of radiation of III-AsNV subcells for an operation in a space environment without the influence of planetary atmosphere [0145]); providing a simulated germanium growth substrate(subcells on germanium substrates [0004]); forming a simulated first solar subcell over or in the growth substrate(Fig 6, #Ge); growing a simulated first middle solar subcell over and lattice mismatched with respect to the growth substrate and having a band gap in the range of 1.2 to 1.35 eV(#III-AsNV alloy with a bandgap 0.9-1.3 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. 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)); growing a simulated second middle solar subcell over the first middle solar subcell and having a band gap in the range of approximately 1.61 to 1.8 eV(#(Al)InGaAs with a bandgap 1.4-1.7 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. 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)); and growing a simulated upper fourth solar subcell disposed over the second middle solar subcell and having a band gap in the range of 1.95 to 2.20 eV(#(Al)InGaP with bandgap 1.9-2.2 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. 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)).
Jones does not disclose : (the beginning of life (BOL), wherein the defined predetermined time to the end of life (EOL) is from one to twenty-five years; growing a simulated graded interlayer over the growth substrate; wherein the graded interlayer is compositionally graded to lattice match the growth substrate on one side and the first middle solar subcell on the other side, and wherein the graded interlayer is composed of a Ill-V compound semiconductor comprising As, P, N, or Sb and an in-plane lattice parameter throughout its thickness that is being greater than or equal to an in-plane lattice parameter of the growth; and identifying a selection of the composition and band gaps of the upper fourth, first, second and third solar subcells of the simulated specimen solar cell that optimizes the efficiency of the solar cell at the defined predetermined time and defined temperature such that the selection has a solar cell efficiency designed at the BOL that is less than a solar cell efficiency at the BOL that would be achieved if the simulation and selection were designed to maximize the solar cell efficiency at the BOL.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches : growing a simulated graded interlayer over the growth substrate(#14); wherein the graded interlayer is compositionally graded to lattice match the growth substrate on one side and the first middle solar subcell on the other side(#14 to include #141 and #149. #141 may have the same lattice constant as #12 with #149 having the same lattice constant as #16[0012]), and wherein the graded interlayer is composed of a Ill-V compound semiconductor comprising As, P, N, or Sb and an in-plane lattice parameter throughout its thickness that is being greater than or equal to an in-plane lattice parameter of the growth(#14 may include layers #141-149 with #141 consisting of InGaAs, GaAs, AlGaAs, InGaP, and AlGaInP [0012] with #142, #144, #146, and/or #148 doped with Si, Se, or S [0012]).
Wanlass teaches in figure 2 of a bandgap and lattice constant graph based on the compositions of Ge, Si, In, Ga, Al, and P. By modifying the compositions of the subcells of Jones and the buffer layer of Lee, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would be able to optimize, through routine experimentation, the composition to a desire bandgap and lattice constant of sub cells and buffer layer since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Patel teaches : and identifying a selection of the composition and band gaps of the upper fourth, first, second and third solar subcells of the simulated specimen solar cell that optimizes the efficiency of the solar cell at the defined predetermined time and defined temperature such that the selection has a solar cell efficiency designed at the BOL that is less than a solar cell efficiency at the BOL that would be achieved if the simulation and selection were designed to maximize the solar cell efficiency at the BOL(Multijunction solar subcells optimized of end of life AM0 efficiency compared to beginning of life efficiency [0025]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of modifying the compositions of Wanlass to the subcells of Jones and the buffer layer of Lee to optimize the bandgap and lattice constant for space applications at end of life of a multijunction solar subcell according to Patel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al, US 20130118546, in view of Patel et al, US 20130327378 in further view of Lee et al, US 20110220190, in further view of Wanlass, US 20060144435, hereafter ‘Wanlass’ and Derkacs et al, US 20140137930.
Regarding claim 16, Jones as modified by Patel discloses : A method as defined in claim 1.
Jones teaches : further comprising after the identifying step: providing a germanium substrate(subcells grown on germanium [0004]); growing on the germanium substrate a lattice matched sequence of layers of semiconductor material using a metal organic chemical vapor disposition process (subcells may be fabricated by metal organic chemical vapor deposition [0147]. Fig. 6, #Ge subcell may be lattice matched with Ge substrate [0084]) to form a solar cell comprising a plurality of solar subcells, wherein the plurality of solar subcells comprises: a first middle solar subcell disposed over the germanium substrate, wherein the first middle solar subcell comprises that includes an emitter layer composed of indium gallium phosphide or aluminum indium gallium arsenide and a base layer composed of aluminum indium gallium arsenide; a second middle solar subcell disposed over the first middle solar subcell, wherein the second middle solar subcell is composed of (aluminum) indium gallium phosphide(emitter for subcells may be included and may include InGaP [0005]);
Jones as modified by Patel does not disclose : and a base layer composed of aluminum indium gallium arsenide; and a graded interlayer grown over the germanium substrate, wherein the graded interlayer is composed of (InxGai-x)yAli-ywith 0<x<1, 0<y<1, and x and y selected such that the band gap of the graded interlayer is constant throughout its thickness.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Derkacs teaches : and a base layer composed of aluminum indium gallium arsenide(base of subcells may include AlInGaAs [Claim 22]).
Lee teaches : a graded interlayer grown over the germanium substrate(#14).
Wanlass teaches : wherein the graded interlayer is composed of (InxGai-x)yAli-ywith 0<x<1, 0<y<1, and x and y selected such that the band gap of the graded interlayer is constant throughout its thickness. (Fig. 2, AlP GaAs/Ge, GaP, GaAs, InP, AlSb, GaSb, InSb, InAs, Si, and Ge are all compositions of subcells and buffer layers that can be modified to change the lattice constant and bandgap [0034-0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teachings the interlayer of Lee to Jones since Jones is open to include buffer layers between subcells (Jones [0004]), the composition of base layer of Derkacs, and the teachings of Wanlass of the modifications of type III-V alloys to change lattice constant and bandgap, through routine optimizing, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al, US 20130118546, in view of Patel et al, US 20130327378 in further view of Lee et al, US 20110220190, in further view of Wanlass, US 20060144435, and Richards et al, US 20140182667.
Regarding claim 5, Jones as modified by Patel and Lee discloses : A method as defined in claim 2.
Jones as modified by Patel and Lee does not disclose : further comprising: forming a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) structure disposed between the second solar subcell and the first solar subcell, wherein the DBR structure is composed of a plurality of alternating layers of lattice mismatched materials with discontinuities in their respective indices of refraction and arranged so that light can enter and pass through the second solar subcell and at least a portion of which light having a first spectral width wavelength range including the band gap of the second solar subcell can be reflected back into the second solar subcell by the DBR structure, and a second portion of which light in a second spectral width wavelength range corresponding to longer wavelengths than the first spectral width wavelength range can be transmitted through the DBR structure to the first solar subcells, disposed beneath the DBR structure, and wherein the difference in refractive indices between the alternating layers in the DBR structure is maximized in order to minimize the number of periods required to achieve a given reflectivity, and the thickness and refractive index of each period of the DBR structure determines the stop, its limiting wavelength, and wherein the DBR structure includes a first DBR sublayer composed of a plurality of n-type or p type Alx(In)Gai-xAs layers, and a second DBR sublayer disposed over the first DBR sublayer and composed of a plurality of n-type or p-type Aly(In)Gai-yAs layers, where 0<x<1, 0<y<1, and y is greater than x and (In) represents an amount of indium so that the DBR layers are lattice matched to the first solar subcell.
However, in the same field of endeavor Richards teaches : further comprising: forming a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) structure disposed between the second solar subcell and the first solar subcell(Fig. 5, #319 between #305 and #307), wherein the DBR structure is composed of a plurality of alternating layers of lattice mismatched materials with discontinuities in their respective indices of refraction and arranged so that light can enter and pass through the second solar subcell and at least a portion of which light having a first spectral width wavelength range including the band gap of the second solar subcell can be reflected back into the second solar subcell by the DBR structure(DBR may include a plurality of layers to increase photoconversion efficiency in multijunction solar cell[0023-0033]), and a second portion of which light in a second spectral width wavelength range corresponding to longer wavelengths than the first spectral width wavelength range can be transmitted through the DBR structure to the first solar subcells, disposed beneath the DBR structure(#316 below #319 to provide low resistance pathway between bottom and middle subcells [0056]), and wherein the difference in refractive indices between the alternating layers in the DBR structure is maximized in order to minimize the number of periods required to achieve a given reflectivity(composed of a plurality of alternating layers of lattice matched materials with discontinuities in their respective indices of refraction, wherein the difference in refractive indices between alternating layers is maximized in order to minimize the number of periods required to achieve a given reflectivity[0028]), and the thickness and refractive index of each period of the DBR structure determines the stop, its limiting wavelength(thickness of alternating layers is designed so that the center of the DBR reflectivity peak is resonant with the absorption wavelength of the intermediate band gap layers [0031]), and wherein the DBR structure includes a first DBR sublayer composed of a plurality of n-type or p type Alx(In)Gai-xAs layers, and a second DBR sublayer disposed over the first DBR sublayer and composed of a plurality of n-type or p-type Aly(In)Gai-yAs layers([0029])..
Wanlass teaches : where 0<x<1, 0<y<1, and y is greater than x and (In) represents an amount of indium so that the DBR layers are lattice matched to the first solar subcell(Fig. 2, AlP GaAs/Ge, GaP, GaAs, InP, AlSb, GaSb, InSb, InAs, Si, and Ge are all compositions of subcells and buffer layers that can be modified to change the lattice constant and bandgap [0034-0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teachings of the DBR of Richards and the optimization of bandgap and lattice constant by modification of material composition to Jones, Patel and Lee since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 11, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al, US 20130118546, in view of Patel et al, US 20130327378 in further view of Wanlass, US 20060144435.
Regarding claim 11, Jones as modified by Patel discloses : A method as defined in claim 1.
Jones as modified by Patel does not disclose : wherein the step is identifying utilizes the design rule of incorporating at least 20% aluminum by mole fraction in the composition of at least the upper fourth solar subcell.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wanlass teaches : wherein the step is identifying utilizes the design rule of incorporating at least 20% aluminum by mole fraction in the composition of at least the upper fourth solar subcell(Fig. 2, modification of composition of materials utilized for space applications [0011] to optimize bandgap and lattice constant[0036-0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine experimentation, the composition of subcells of a solar cell to obtain the desired balance of bandgap and lattice constant, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 17, Jones as modified by Patel discloses : A method as defined in claim 1.
Jones as modified by Patel does not disclose : wherein the identifying is performed by an analysis of test results by independently incrementally adjusting one or more interdependent variables comprising, composition layer, thickness, doping, and doping profile of the second, third and/or upper fourth solar subcell candidates to obtain adjusted solar subcell candidates.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wanlass teaches : wherein the identifying is performed by an analysis of test results by independently incrementally adjusting one or more interdependent variables comprising, composition layer, thickness, doping, and doping profile of the second, third and/or upper fourth solar subcell candidates to obtain adjusted solar subcell candidates(Fig. 2, AlP GaAs/Ge, GaP, GaAs, InP, AlSb, GaSb, InSb, InAs, Si, and Ge are all compositions of subcells and buffer layers that can be modified to change the lattice constant and bandgap [0034-0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize, through routine experimentation, the composition of subcells of a solar cell to obtain the desired balance of bandgap and lattice constant, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 18, Jones as modified by Patel and Wanlass discloses : A method as defined in claim 17.
Jones teaches : wherein the identifying comprises execution of a computer program that simulates the effect of radiation on the solar cell with the solar subcell candidates(Radiation simulations to examine degradation of solar subcells in space environments[0051]).
Regarding claim 20, Jones discloses : A method of fabricating a four junction solar cell for deployment in space in AMO spectra in a specific earth orbit characterized by a predetermined temperature and radiation environment comprising: providing a defined predetermined time and defined temperature in the range of 40° to 100 Centigrade after initial deployment(simulations at temperatures 25 to 90 Celsius, 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), simulating with a computer program the effect of the amount of radiation and the defined temperature on a plurality of upper first(Effects of radiation on subcells ran on software [0052])., second and third solar subcell candidates for implementation(bandgaps may be selected from a range of 0.7 eV to 1.4 eV as shown in figure 4. Compositions of III-AsNV may be selected based on reliability simulations of III-AsNV subcells and have at least shown to be tested to the equivalent of up to 390 years of on-sun operations [0050]).
Jones does not disclose : the beginning of life (BOL), wherein the defined predetermined time to the end of life (EOL) is from one to twenty-five years after the BOL; determining the amount of radiation to be experienced by the solar cell between BOL and EOL in a specific earth orbit; and identifying a selection of the composition and band gaps of the upper first, second and third subcell candidates that optimizes the efficiency of the solar cell at the predetermined time and the defined temperature.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wanlass teaches in figure 2 of a bandgap and lattice constant graph based on the compositions of Ge, Si, In, Ga, Al, and P. By modifying the compositions of the subcells of Jones and the buffer layer of Lee, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would be able to optimize, through routine experimentation, the composition to a desire bandgap and lattice constant of sub cells and buffer layer since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Patel teaches : the beginning of life (BOL), wherein the defined predetermined time to the end of life (EOL) is from one to twenty-five years after the BOL Multi-junction subcell optimized for end of life AM0 space environment of at least 15 years [0009]); determining the amount of radiation to be experienced by the solar cell between BOL and EOL in a specific earth orbit; and identifying a selection of the composition and band gaps of the upper first, second and third subcell candidates that optimizes the efficiency of the solar cell at the predetermined time and the defined temperature(Bandgap optimized for end of life in an AM0 environment [0008-0009]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of modifying the compositions of Wanlass to the subcells of Jones to optimize the bandgap and lattice constant for space applications and to optimize solar subcells for end of life space applications in accordance to Patel, since it has been held to be within the general skill in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
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 DAVE TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-4 PST.
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, CHAD DICKE can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights