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 .
Summary
This is the response to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 03/30/2026.
Claims 1, 4-15 and 17-23 remain pending in the application with claims 11-15 and 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 4-10 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the n-side metal pad is configured to be electrically isolated from the second subcell at the passivation layer” is new mater not supported by the originally filed disclosure because the n-side metal pad is required to be electrically connected to the second subcell via the interconnection layer and for the functionality of the multijunction photovoltaic device, according to the originally filed disclosure; therefore, the n-side metal pad is not electrically isolated from the second subcell at the passivation layer.
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, 4-10 and 21-23 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 limitation “wherein the n-side metal pad is configured to be electrically isolated from the second subcell at the passivation layer” that renders the claims indefinite. This is because the n-side metal pad is required to be in electrical connection with the second subcell in order for the multijunction photovoltaic device to be function, this is evidenced by the electrical connection between the n-side metal pad and the second subcell established by the interconnection layer. Therefore, the n-side metal pad cannot be electrically isolated from the second subcell at the passivation layer as claim. The limitation does not make any sense since it is unclear as to how the n-side metal pad is electrically isolated from the second subcell at the passivation layer when it is required to be electrically connected to the second subcell at all time?
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, 4, 6-10, 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamino et al. (US 2022/0102659) in view of Fetzer (US 2018/0151304).
Addressing claims 1, 6-7 and 21, Kamino discloses a multijunction photovoltaic device (figs. 6-7), comprising:
a first subcell 5 comprising III-V semiconductor material (first sub-cell 5 made of GaAs);
a second subcell (the combination of layers 9 + SnO2 layer + ITO layer; alternatively, layer 9 alone as the claimed second subcell) on the first subcell comprising organometallic halide ionic solid perovskite semiconductor material [0056] as the claimed absorber layer (the combination of layers 9, SnO2 and ITO as the claimed absorber layer; alternatively, layer 9 alone as the claimed absorber layer);
a passivation layer 15 (made of SiO2, Al2O3, Ta2O5 and ZnS [0060]) on at least a portion of a top surface of the first subcell (fig. 6); and
an n-side metal pad (annotated portion of layer 17 in figs. 4 and 7 below as the structural equivalence to the claimed n-side metal pad) in contact with an exposed surface of the passivation layer, wherein the n-side metal pad is configured to be electrically isolated from the second subcell at the passivation layer (the annotated portion of layer 17 in figs. 4 and 7 is not in physical contact with the second subcell and is physically separated from the second subcell via the passivation layer 15, which meets the limitation of current claim) and
an interconnection tab (annotated potion of layer 17 in figs. 4 and 7 below as the structural equivalence to the claimed interconnection tab) attached to the n-side metal pad and in contact with the second subcell (annotated figs. 4 and 6 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
442
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
162
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kamino is silent regarding the first subcell comprising a base semiconductor material comprises group III-V semiconductor material and a second semiconductor material.
Fetzer discloses a multijunction photovoltaic cell (fig. 3) comprises a first subcell comprising a base semiconductor material 34 made of GaAs, similarly to that of Kamino, and a second semiconductor material (n-type GaAs emitter layer 32).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the multijunction photovoltaic cell of Kamino with the known first subcell comprises p-type GaAs base layer and n-type GaAs emitter layer as disclosed by Fetzer in order to obtain the predictable result of forming a multijunction photovoltaic cell with improved current densities with high efficiency (Fetzer, [0041]).
Addressing claims 4 and 23, fig. 9 shows the interconnection tab is made of silver [0087].
Addressing claim 8, fig. 6 of Kamino shows the n-side metal pad and the interconnection tab are on a single side of the multijunction photovoltaic device as claimed.
Addressing claim 9, fig. 6 of Kamino shows the passivation layer 15 is adjacent to the second subcell.
Addressing claim 10, fig. 6 of Kamino shows the second subcell does not cover the side surfaces and the back surface of the first subcell; therefore, the second subcell does not completely cover the first subcell as claimed.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamino et al. (US 2022/0102659) in view of Fetzer (US 2018/0151304) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6-10, 21 and 23 above, and further in view of Beaucarne et al. (US 2014/0332072).
Addressing claim 5, Kamino discloses the electrically conductive layer 17 is made of silver that includes busbar portion (paragraph [0087] describes silver busbars, which is shown in fig. 4 as the wide portion extending in the vertical direction upon which interconnectors 19 is positioned) and finger or grid portion (the narrow portions extending in the horizontal direction perpendicular to the aforementioned busbar portion). It is noted that the claimed “interconnection tab” of current claim is the structural equivalence to the finger or grid portion of Kamino’s device because paragraph [0049] of the specification states “an interconnect tab 210, which in this example, is shown as a metal grid finger”. Kamino discloses both the busbar portion and the finger or grid portion are made of the same silver material [0087]. Therefore, Kamino is silent regarding the n-side metal pad and the interconnection tab comprise two different metals.
Beaucarne discloses a solar cell comprising an electrically conductive layer having the busbar portion 44 and the finger portion 36; wherein, the busbar portion and the finger portion can be made of the same material or different metal materials (paragraph [0056] discloses that the bus bar portion is made of Cu and the finger portion is made of Ag, which is the same material as the electrically conductive layer of Kamino). Furthermore, the busbar portion 44 is designed for coupling with the interconnecting tab 50, similarly to that of Kamino where the bus bar portion of the electrically conductive layer is designed for being coupled with the interconnector 19.
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the photovoltaic device of Kamino with the known busbar and finger portions being made of different metals as disclosed by Beaucarne in order to reduce manufacturing cost (Beaucarne, [0060]) while still obtain the predictable result of interconnecting adjacent photovoltaic devices via the interconnector coupled to the bus bar (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamino et al. (US 2022/0102659) in view of Fetzer (US 2018/0151304) as applied to claims 1, 4, 6-10, 21 and 23 above, and further in view of Gee et al. (US 2005/0172998).
Addressing claim 22, Kamino discloses the passivation layer 15 is made of SiO2 or TaO5 [0060]. Kamino is silent regarding the passivation layer is made of TiO2.
Gee discloses in paragraph [0062] that a passivation layer made of dielectric material such as TiO2, TaO5 similarly to those of Kamino or TiO2.
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, one with ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the photovoltaic device of Kamino by substituting the known SiO2 or TaO5 insulating material with the known TiO2 insulating material disclosed by Gee in order to obtain the predictable result of providing electrical insulation (Rationale B, KSR decision, MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-10, 21 and 23 as being unpatentable over Kamino in view of Fetzer, the Applicant argued that Kamino and Fetzer do not teach or suggest the claimed front-side interconnect structure because claim 1 requires two distinct conductive structures as the discrete pad and interconnection tab architecture, rather than a single conductive layer serving all such functions. The argument is not persuasive. With regard to the functions of the claimed n-side metal pad and interconnection tab, the functions are disclosed by Kamino with the function of the n-side metal pad acting as the bus bar relative to the function of the interconnection structure as the collector finger electrodes (paragraph [0015] of the specification indicates that the interconnection structure is indeed grid finger, which is known as collector finger electrode). With regard to the Applicant’s assertion that the claimed n-side metal tab and the interconnection tab are two distinct structures, the argument is acknowledged; however, the claim does not require the n-side metal pad and the interconnection tab to be distinct structures as argued by the Applicant when the limitation of claim 1 is read in light of the specification. Specifically, paragraph [0034] states that the n-side metal pad and the interconnection tab are made of the same metal or different metal. When the n-side metal pad and the interconnection tab are made of the same metal, which is disclosed by Kamino, the distinction between the two structures are based on their functions, which are also disclosed by Kamino. In other words, when the limitation n-side metal pad and interconnection tab are read in light of the specification, the annotated structures of Kamino meets the limitation “n-side metal pad” and “interconnection tab” structurally, made of the same material, and distinct functionally, as discussed above.
The Applicant further argued that Kamino does not disclose that the n-side metal pad that is separately provided on the exposed passivation surface and is electrically isolated from the second subcell. The argument is not persuasive because the annotated portion of the conductive structure 17 that is the structural equivalence to the claimed n-side metal pad is provided on the exposed surface of the passivation layer that is different from the location of the annotated portion of the conductive structure 17 that is the structural equivalence to the claimed interconnection tab. Furthermore, it is reminded that the n-side metal pad of current application is not electrically isolated from the second subcell in any way, the n-side metal pad of current application has to be electrically connected to the second subcell in order to conduct the electrical power generated by the second subcell. The n-side metal pad of current application is electrically connected to the second subcell at all via the interconnection tab. The annotated portion of the conductive structure 17 of Kamino that is the structural equivalence to the claimed n-side metal pad is physically separated from the second subcell via the passivation layer; therefore, the annotated portion of the conductive structure 17 is the claimed n-side metal pad in contact with an exposed surface of the passivation layer and is configured to be electrically isolated from the second subcell as claimed.
For the reasons above, Examiner maintains the position that claims 1, 4, 6-10, 21 and 23 are unpatentable over the disclosure of Kamino in view of Fetzer.
The arguments regarding the rejection of claims 5 and 22 are not persuasive because the arguments regarding the rejection of claim 1 are not persuasive.
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 BACH T DINH whose telephone number is (571)270-5118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:00 - 4:30 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571)-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.
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 04/20/2026
Prosecution Insights