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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-13 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/17/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance. This action is made final.
Status of Rejections Pending
since The Office Action of 06/18/2025
The examiner modified the rejection below to address claim amendment.
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, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa et al (PG pub 20180006165), and further in view of Lin et al (PG pub 20150013742).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshikawa et al teaches a solar cell comprising:
A photoelectric conversion layer 50 [fig 1 para 30-37 80]
An electrode layer 41 adjacent to the photoelectric layer [fig 1 para 39]
A collecting electrode layer (60,66) adjacent to the electrode layer [fig 1-2 para 45]
The collecting electrode layer having a fine line first portion 60 [fig 2 para 45]
Yoshikawa et al teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but Yoshikawa et al does not teach the width, length and thickness of the first portion as claimed.
Lin et al teaches a solar cell comprising finger electrode having length, width and thickness where length, width and thickness would be adjusted for reducing a series resistance and maximizing a fill factor and the photoelectric conversion efficiency of the solar cell as well as avoiding peeling issues of the finger electrodes [para 31].
The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art."[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP§ 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the length, width and thickness of the finger electrode of modified Yoshikawa et al to arrive the claimed range for reducing a series resistance and maximizing a fill factor and the photoelectric conversion efficiency of the solar cell as well as avoiding peeling issues of the finger electrodes [para 31].
Regarding claim 2, modified Yoshikawa et al teaches the collecting electrode includes a plurality of the first portions 60 and a second portion 66 to which the plurality of first portions is connected [fig 1-2].
Regarding claim 4, modified Yoshikawa et al teaches thickness to arrive the claimed range as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9-10, modified Yoshikawa et al teaches the electric conversion layer being made of CIS based and the solar module having photoelectric conversion elements [para 80].
Regarding claim 12, modified Yoshikawa et al teaches thickness to arrive the claimed range as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Yoshikawa et al teaches a solar cell comprising:
A photoelectric conversion layer 50 [fig 1 para 30-37 80]
An electrode layer 41 adjacent to the photoelectric layer [fig 1 para 39]
A collecting electrode layer (60,66) adjacent to the electrode layer [fig 1-2 para 45]
The collecting electrode layer having a fine line first portion 60 [fig 2 para 45]
Yoshikawa et al teaches the claimed limitation as set forth above, but Yoshikawa et al does not teach the width, length and thickness of the first portion as claimed.
Lin et al teaches a solar cell comprising finger electrode having length, width and thickness where length, width and thickness would be adjusted for reducing a series resistance and maximizing a fill factor and the photoelectric conversion efficiency of the solar cell as well as avoiding peeling issues of the finger electrodes [para 31].
The court has held that absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results, optimization of a result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art."[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP§ 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, absent the showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the length, width and thickness of the finger electrode of modified Yoshikawa et al to arrive the claimed range for reducing a series resistance and maximizing a fill factor and the photoelectric conversion efficiency of the solar cell as well as avoiding peeling issues of the finger electrodes [para 31].
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa et al (PG pub 20180006165), and Lin et al (PG pub 20150013742) and further in view of JP 2006324504, hereinafter as ‘504.
Regarding claim 6, modified Yoshikawa et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Yoshikawa et al does not teach the protrusion as claimed.
‘504 teaches a solar cell comprising a finger electrode where at the end of the finger electrode, there is protrusion protruding in a direction intersecting a direction in which the first portion extends [fig 3] for preventing the peeling (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the end of the finger electrode as taught by modified Yoshikawa et al to be the same shape of ‘504 for preventing the peeling.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa et al (PG pub 20180006165), and Lin et al (PG pub 20150013742) and further in view of KR 101628365, hereinafter as ‘365.
Regarding claim 7-8, modified Yoshikawa et at teaches another electrode layer 42 provided on a side opposite to the electrode layer with respect to the photoelectric conversion layer; and a laminated body (31,21,10,22,32) provided between said another electrode layer and the electrode layer and including the photoelectric conversion layer [fig 1 para 80]. Also, the solar cell would be CIS or the laminated is the CIS based layers. However, modified Yoshikawa et al does not teach the laminated having a layer with cleavability.
‘365 teaches a solar cell having a laminated with CIS absorption layer 300 and a buffer layer 250 being made of MoSe2 (description section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the laminated of modified Yoshikawa et al to be include buffer layer being made of MoSe2 as taught by ‘365 since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
In the instant application, para 27 shows the buffer layer being made of MoSe2 and having cleavability and a hexagonal crystal structure. Since modified Yoshikawa teaches the laminated having Mose2 layer, it is considered that the MoSe2 layer having cleavability and a hexagonal crystal structure.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa et al (PG pub 20180006165), and Lin et al (PG pub 20150013742) and further in view of Miller et al (PG Pub 20120004780).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yoshikawa et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Yoshikawa et al does not tech the solar cell module being used in paddle.
Miller et al teaches a solar system comprising solar module being installed on the paddle [fig 14 para 10 94].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to place solar modules of modified Yoshikawa et al to be on the paddles of Miller et al since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues in substance:
Table 1-2 provides the evidence of superiority of examples 1-8 where Yoshikawa in view of Lin does not teach the claimed amendment.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. the structure claimed is not commensurate in scope with the table 1 and 2 described in the specification which makes any criticality attributed to the aspect ratio relevant to the complete structure described in the specification, not the abbreviated structure of the claims which is missing several components described in the instant specification. For example, the claims do not require the specific value of width and thickness as recited in the table 1.
Regarding argument directed to Yoshikawa in view of ‘094, it is not persuasive since Yoshikawa in view of ‘094 is not applied in the current rejection.
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 UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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 5712721307. 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726