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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see rejection below for addressing of Applicant’s arguments.
Further, Applicant has submitted two claim drafts.
Claim draft 1: This draft is seen in the actual claim draft, filed 7/21/2026, and has the following limitation in claim 1: “…an optically transparent material, which is coated using an optically transparent, electrically conductive layer; or…”
Claim draft 2: This draft is seen Applicant’s Remarks page 13, filed 7/21/2026, and has the following limitation in claim 1: “…an optically transparent material, which is coated [[using] ]]with an optically transparent, electrically conductive layer; OR…”
Examiner is unsure which version Applicant’s desire to move forward with. Please clarify in a future response.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzu (20190044016)
Regarding claim 1, Uzu teaches an device for improving the ohmic contact between a front side contact and a doped layer of a wafer solar cell, the wafer solar cell comprising a front side, a rear side, the front side contact, the doped layer and a rear side contact (please see fig. 1 and 3; further, please see par. 75-78), the device comprising:
a contacting unit (fig. 7A-7F: 91) for electrically contacting one of the front side or rear side contacts;
a further contacting unit (fig. 7A-7F: 92) for electrically contacting the other of the rear side or front side contacts;
a voltage source (fig. 7A-7F: 90) having one pole for electrical connection to the contact unit and another pole for electrical connection to the further contacting unit;
a point light source (fig. 7A-7F: 99) configured and designed to illuminate the front side or the rear side of the wafer solar cell;
wherein:
the further contacting unit comprises:
an optically transparent material (fig. 7E: 52), which is coated using an optically transparent, electrically conductive layer (par. 93 teaches 52 is a transparent electroconductive layer; please note that 52 is acting as part of the contacting unit by acting s a conduit to send electrical signals to the lower layers); or
an optically transparent material having a multiplicity of microscopically thin, electrically conductive wires, which are integrated into a surface of the optically transparent material (par. 58 teaches a second transparent electrode which is patterned); or
an optically transparent, electrically conductive material having a multiplicity of microscopically thin, electrically conductive wires which are integrated into a surface of the optically transparent, electrically conductive material (par. 81 teaches separation groove separating a first electrode 51 may be filled with an electroconductive material such as a conductive oxide, which are known to be transparent; all elements seen in figs. 4A-4F are microscopic).
Please note that multiple embodiments of prior art are used above. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, at the time of filing to utilize these embodiments in combination since are related to similar fields of endeavor. Further, elements in embodiments, seen in fig. 4A-4F and 7A-7E, would allow for the creation of a more efficient PV, seen in fig. 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 3, Uzu teaches an device according to claim 1, wherein the multiplicity of microscopically thin, electrically conductive wires are aligned in parallel to one another and embedded as a grid or as a mesh in the surface of the transparent material (please see rejection for claim 1 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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.
Claim 4 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.
Claim 5 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 5.
Claim 6 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.
Claims 11-15 allowed.
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 CALEB E HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/CALEB E HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
