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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 12/13/23, 1/11/24, and 1/23/24. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karlina et al. (“Progress in Narrow Gap InGaAs/InP Element for Tandem Solar Cells”, 1994; “Karlina”) as evidence by teaching reference Iguchi (U.S. 2021/0066521 A1; “Iguchi”).
Regarding claim 1, Karlina discloses a method for producing at least one photovoltaic cell for converting electromagnetic radiation into electrical energy, the method comprising the following steps:
A. Providing a superstrate (n-InP substrate, Fig. 1) formed as a semiconductor substrate (p 1918, col 2);
B. Applying photovoltaic cell semiconductor layers (n-InAsAs, p-InGaAs, p+ InGaAs, Fig. 1) for forming at least one photovoltaic cell to a rear face of the superstrate indirectly or directly, wherein the photovoltaic cell semiconductor layers have at least one absorber layer (p-InGaAs, Fig. 1) formed from a direct semiconductor (p 1918, col 2);
Wherein the superstrate (n-InP substrate, Fig. 1) is in the form of a current conducting layer having a thickness greater than 10 µm and, in method step B, the method further comprises forming the photovoltaic cell semiconductor layers (n-InAsAs, p-InGaAs, p+ InGaAs, Fig. 1) with an electrically conductive connection to the current conducting layer (n-InP substrate, Fig. 1), disposing a metamorphic buffer structure having one or more buffer layers (n-InP “buffer”, Fig. 1) is disposed between the current conducting layer (n-InP substrate, Fig. 1) and the photovoltaic cell semiconductor layers (n-InAsAs, p-InGaAs, p+ InGaAs, Fig. 1).
Karlina discloses the current conducting layer and buffer layer each comprise InP and the absorber layer comprises InGaAs (Fig. 1). Teaching reference Iguchi discloses InP has a bandgap of 1.35 eV and InGaAs has a bandgap of 0.75 eV ([0058]) which demonstrates that Karlina implicitly discloses the band gap of the current conducting layer (InP) and a band gap of the buffer layer (InP) is larger than that of the absorber (InGaAs) by at least 10 meV.
Regarding claim 2, Karlina discloses monolithically forming the current conducting layer (n-InP substrate, Fig. 1), the metamorphic buffer structure (n-InP “buffer”, Fig. 1) and the photovoltaic cell semiconductor layers (n-InAsAs, p-InGaAs, p+ InGaAs, Fig. 1) (p 1918, col 2 – p 1919, col 1).
Regarding claim 3, Examiner notes that this claim is a device claim (preamble of “A transmission system…”) so method limitations in this claim are examined with respect to the structural limitations implied by the method steps (See MPEP 2113). Here, Karlina discloses the superstrate comprises InP and the absorber comprises InGaAs (see claim 1 rejection above). Teaching reference Iguchi discloses InP has a bandgap of 1.35 eV and InGaAs has a bandgap of 0.75 eV ([0058]) which means that Karlina implicitly discloses the band gap of the superstrate (InP) has a larger band gap than that of the absorber (InGaAs).
Regarding claim 5, Karlina discloses forming a metallic front-face contacting structure (Au:Ge/Ni/Au, Fig. 1) on a front face of the superstrate (n-InP substrate, Fig. 1), said contacting structure (Au:Ge/Ni/Au, Fig. 1) is disposed on the front face of the superstrate (n-InP substrate, Fig. 1) indirectly or directly and is electrically conductively connected to the superstrate (p 1918, col 2).
Regarding claim 10, Karlina discloses forming the superstrate of InP (n-InP substrate, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Karlina discloses a providing the at least one photovoltaic cell in a transmission system for at least energy by means of electromagnetic radiation, having at least one radiation source (sun) for generating electromagnetic radiation and one of the photovoltaic cells for converting incident electromagnetic radiation into electrical energy (Abstract).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlina et al. (“Progress in Narrow Gap InGaAs/InP Element for Tandem Solar Cells”, 1994; “Karlina”) as evidenced by teaching reference Iguchi (U.S. 2021/0066521 A1; “Iguchi”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guter et al. (U.S. 2015/0340534 A1; “Guter”).
Regarding claim 4, Karlina discloses a metamorphic buffer structure having one or more buffer layers (n-InP “buffer”, Fig. 1) (p 1918, col 2 – p 1919, col 1) but does not disclose it is formed with a bandgap which decreases starting from the current conducting layer in a direction of the photovoltaic cell semiconductor layers. However, Guter discloses a metamorphic buffer structure having one or more buffer layers (MP6, MP5, Fig. 1) formed with a bandgap which decreases in a first direction ([0031], [0035]). This has the advantage of increased operational reliability and higher solar cell efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Karlina as evidenced by teaching reference Iguchi with a metamorphic buffer structure having one or more buffer layers formed with a bandgap which decreases from the current conducting layer in a direction of the photovoltaic cell semiconductor layers, as taught by Guter, so as to increase operational reliability and increase solar cell efficiency.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlina et al. (“Progress in Narrow Gap InGaAs/InP Element for Tandem Solar Cells”, 1994; “Karlina”) as evidenced by teaching reference Iguchi (U.S. 2021/0066521 A1; “Iguchi”) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Karlina discloses the superstrate has a receiving region (portion of n-InP substrate not covered by Au:Ge/Ni/Au, Fig. 1) for receiving incident electromagnetic radiation (p 1918, col 2). Yet, Karlina does not disclose a degree of coverage of the front-face contacting structure in the receiving region is less than 5%. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a degree of coverage of the front-face contacting structure in the receiving region to be less than 5%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a 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 233.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlina et al. (“Progress in Narrow Gap InGaAs/InP Element for Tandem Solar Cells”, 1994; “Karlina”) as evidenced by teaching reference Iguchi (U.S. 2021/0066521 A1; “Iguchi”) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Dong et al. (U.S. 2020/0185558 A1; “Dong”).
Regarding claim 7, Karlina discloses a receiving region (portion of n-InP substrate not covered by Au:Ge/Ni/Au, Fig. 1) for receiving incident electromagnetic radiation (p 1918, col 2) but does not disclose it is circular. However, Dong discloses an incident electromagnetic radiation receiving region which is circular with a diameter of 2 mm ([0104]). Because both Karlina, as evidenced by Iguchi, and Dong teach methods of forming incident electromagnetic radiation receiving regions, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute one method for the other to achieve the predictable result of forming the receiving region in a circular shape. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlina et al. (“Progress in Narrow Gap InGaAs/InP Element for Tandem Solar Cells”, 1994; “Karlina”) as evidenced by teaching reference Iguchi (U.S. 2021/0066521 A1; “Iguchi”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meitl et al. (U.S. 2017/0018675 A1; “Meitl”).
Regarding claim 8, Karlina discloses photovoltaic cell semiconductor layers (n-InAsAs, p-InGaAs, p+ InGaAs, Fig. 1) on a rear face of the superstrate (n-InP substrate, Fig. 1) (p 1918, col 2) but does not disclose a mirror structure on a rear face of the photovoltaic cell semiconductor layer facing away from the superstrate. However, Meitl discloses a mirror structure on a rear face of photovoltaic cell semiconductor layers ([0081]). This has the advantage of reflecting electromagnetic radiation back to the absorber which increases efficiency of the photovoltaic cell. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Karlina as evidenced by Iguchi with a mirror structure on a rear face of the photovoltaic cell semiconductor layers, as taught by Meitl, so as to increase the photovoltaic cell efficiency.
Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlina et al. (“Progress in Narrow Gap InGaAs/InP Element for Tandem Solar Cells”, 1994; “Karlina”) as evidenced by teaching reference Iguchi (U.S. 2021/0066521 A1; “Iguchi”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Derkacs (U.S. 20180062017 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Karlina discloses photovoltaic cell semiconductor layers (n-InAsAs, p-InGaAs, p+ InGaAs, Fig. 1) on a rear face of the superstrate (n-InP substrate, Fig. 1) (p 1918, col 2) but does not disclose tunnel diode layers between the photovoltaic cell semiconductor layers and the superstrate. However, Derkacs discloses tunnel diode layers between photovoltaic cell semiconductor layers and underlying layers ([0132]). This has the advantage of connecting additional photovoltaic cells and forming a stacked multi-photovoltaic cell which can increase overall output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of a tunnel diode layer between photovoltaic cell semiconductor layers and underlying layers, as taught by Derkacs, so as to increase overall output of the photovoltaic device.
Regarding claim 15, Karlina discloses at least a single photovoltaic cell comprising photovoltaic cell semiconductor layers (n-InAsAs, p-InGaAs, p+ InGaAs, Fig. 1) on a rear face of the superstrate (n-InP substrate, Fig. 1) (p 1918, col 2). Yet, Karlina does not disclose forming a stacked multi-photovoltaic cell. However, Derkacs discloses forming multiple photovoltaic cells in the form of a stacked multi-photovoltaic cell ([0117]; Fig. 2). This has the advantage of increasing output of the photovoltaic device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Karlina as evidenced by Iguchi with the photovoltaic cell semiconductors arranged to form a stacked multi-photovoltaic cell, as taught by Derkacs, so as to increase output of the photovoltaic device.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlina et al. (“Progress in Narrow Gap InGaAs/InP Element for Tandem Solar Cells”, 1994; “Karlina”) as evidenced by teaching reference Iguchi (U.S. 2021/0066521 A1; “Iguchi”) as modified by Meitl et al. (U.S. 2017/0018675 A1; “Meitl”) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Cardwell et al. (U.S. 2021/0020798 A1; “Cardwell”).
Regarding claim 17, Karlina and Meitl disclose forming a mirror structure (see claim 8 rejection above) but do not disclose the mirror structure comprises a metal layer of silver or gold. However, Cardwell discloses forming a mirror structure of a silver or gold layer ([0070]). This has the advantage of forming the mirror structure with good reflectivity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Karlina as evidenced by Iguchi in view of Meitl with forming the mirror structure of a silver or gold layer, a taught by Cardwell, so as to increase reflectivity of the mirror structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 and 18 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REEMA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/REEMA PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 2/6/2026