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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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, 4, 7-10, and 12-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the first semiconductor film is between the second semiconductor film and the substrate and has a doping concentration of the second semiconductor film that is less than a doping concentration of the second semiconductor film” which is unclear because it is unclear how the first semiconductor film has the doping of the semiconductor film and also a doping less than a doping concentration of the second semiconductor film”. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2023/0074348 A1).
Regarding claim 1 , Wu discloses a tandem cell, comprising (see Figs: 1-3 [0137]- [0144])
a bottom cell, including (2):
a substrate (See Figs. 1 and 3, bottom cell of 2 is shown and [0138]) , having a front surface and a back surface that are opposite to each other.
In an additional embodiment Wu discloses before forming transport and intermediate layers a thin tunneling SiO2 dielectric passivation layer can be formed ([0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tandem solar cell of Wu by first forming a SiO2 tunneling passivation layer (SiO2 is a dielectric material ) before forming transport and intermediate layers because Wu discloses that it is obvious to do so.
In addition, Wu discloses a semiconductor layer ([0137]-[0141], n+/ n++/p++ of n+/n++p++/p+), disposed on a surface of the tunnelling passivation dielectric (modification above) away from the substrate and is doped with doping ions wherein the semiconductor layer includes a plurality of semiconductor films (n+/ n++/p++) that are successively stacked in a direction perpendicular to the back surface of the substrate, the plurality of semiconductor films include at least a first semiconductor film (n+, 32 ) and a second semiconductor film (332/331, n++/p++), the first semiconductor film (32) is between the second semiconductor film (332/331, n++/p++) and the substrate and has a doping concentration less than second semiconductor film (332/331, n++/p++), the first semiconductor film (32) is configured to provide passivation for the bottom cell [0058], and the second semiconductor film (332/331, n++/p++) ([0047]) is configured to provide passivation and to serve as at least part of a recombination layer of the tandem cell an intermediate layer (layer p+ of n+/n++p++/p+ [0137]), disposed on a surface of the semiconductor layer away from the substrate; and a top cell (1), disposed on a side of the intermediate layer away from the substrate ([0139]-[0140]).
Regarding claims 8 and 12, modified Wu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Wu discloses wherein the doping concentration of the doping ions in the semiconductor layer gradually increases in a direction perpendicular to the back surface of the substrate and away from the substrate ([0108][0139]-[0141], graded doping indicated The doping concentration is slightly higher than the doping concentration of the n+ amorphous silicon layer, and reaches an order of 1019 cm−3 to the n++ layer which is 1020 cm−3).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Wu discloses wherein the plurality of semiconductor films include adjacent semiconductor films having a same thickness (thickness of n+ layer with higher doping is 0.5-1 nm from the interface of n+ and n++ layers, n++ and p++ layer can have thickness between 0.5-1 nm [0140]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Wu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Wu discloses wherein the plurality of semiconductor films include adjacent semiconductor films having a same thickness (thickness of n+ layer with higher doping is 0.5-1 nm, n++ and p++ layer can have thickness between 0.5-1 nm [0140]) and the lower transport layer can have a thickness between 5nm -10nm ([0139]).
However, Wu does not explicitly disclose wherein the semiconductor layer has a total thickness in a range of 10 nm to 120 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 9, modified Wu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In another embodiment Wu discloses that the upper transport layer (31) (intermediate layer) can have and inorganic oxide ([0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the upper transport layer to further include a metal oxide as disclosed by Wu because Wu discloses it is obvious to do so.
Regarding claim 10, modified Wu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Wu discloses wherein the intermediate layer (31, p+) has a thickness
in a range of 1 nm to 20 nm ([0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 13, modified Wu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Wu wherein a doping type of the first semiconductor film (n+) is different from a doping type of the second semiconductor film (p++ portion of n++/p++).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, modified Wu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Wu discloses wherein the second semiconductor film has doping concentration in a range of 1x1018 cm3 to 1x1021 cm3 [0140] and wherein the second
semiconductor film has a thickness in the range of 1 nm to 20 nm ([0140]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new rejection relies on portions of the prior art which are not specifically challenged in the argument.
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 DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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 T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726