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 09/09/2026.
Claims 1 and 4-23 remain pending in the application.
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, 4-10, 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 Takimoto (WO2016/117180 with provided machine English translation) and Fetzer (US 2018/0151304).
Addressing claims 1, 6-7, 21 and 23, 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 portion (annotated portion of layer 17 in fig. 4 below functions as a metal pad) in contact with an exposed surface of the passivation layer, wherein the passivation layer 15 electrically insulates the n-side metal pad portion from the first subcell (the annotated portion of layer 17 in figs. 4 and 7 is physically separated from the first subcell by the passivation layer; therefore, the passivation layer insulates the annotated portion from the first subcell); and
an interconnection tab portion (annotated potion of layer 17 in fig. below performs the same function as the claimed interconnection tab) is physically joined to the n-side metal pad and in contact with the second subcell (annotated figs. 4 and 6 below), wherein the n-side metal pad portion is electrically coupled to the second subcell via the interconnection tab portion (the interconnection tab portion is the only electrically conductive structure connecting the n-side metal pad portion and the second subcell, which results in the claimed electrical contact).
The annotated conductive structure of Kamino in fig. 4 below, which is the structural equivalence to the claimed n-side metal pad, is located on the exposed surface of the passivation layer in a portion of the top surface of the first subcell in which the second subcell is absent, and wherein the interconnection tab extends from the widthwise end of the n-side metal pad into contact with the second subcell.
Kamino further discloses interconnector 19 made of metallic wire is attached to the annotated conductive structure below via soldering [0062].
PNG
media_image1.png
442
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kamino is silent regarding the first subcell comprising a base semiconductor material comprises group III-V semiconductor material, the interconnection tab and the n-side metal pad define a welded or soldered joint in the claimed arrangement.
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]).
Takimoto discloses a photovoltaic device comprising bus electrode section 13b and finger electrodes 13a with the bus electrode section 13 is soldered to the tab wire 31 similarly to that of Kamino. In fig. 10, Takimoto further discloses the bus electrode 13b and the finger electrode 13a define a welded or soldered joint (the solder layer 32 in the clearance 24 between the bus electrode 13b and the finger electrode 13a is the structural equivalence to the claimed soldered joint). The finger electrode 13a extends from the welded or soldered joint (figs. 9-10).
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 arranging the n-side metal pad (annotated conductive structure above), the interconnection tab (annotated conductive structure above) and metal wire with the arrangement between the bus electrode, the finger electrode and the tab wire in the configuration disclosed by Takimoto in order to ensure a larger contact area between the annotated n-side metal pad section and the tab wire 19 of Kamino when soldering the tab wire to the annotated n-side metal pad section thereby stabilizing the solderability between the annotated n-side metal pad section and the tab wire (the third paragraph in page 10 to the end of the first paragraph in page 11 of the Takimoto translation document). In the modified photovoltaic device of Kamino in view of Takimoto, the soldered joint is located at the n-side metal pad on the exposed surface of the passivation layer in a portion of the top surface of the first subcell in which the second subcell is absent because the soldered joint is positioned in the contact area between the metal wire and the annotated n-side metal pad, which exists within the outer boundary of the annotated n-side metal pad section of Kamino that is at the claimed location. Furthermore, the modified photovoltaic device of Kamino in view of Takimoto also has the interconnection tab extends from soldered joint into contact with the second subcell because Takimoto disclose the finger electrode 13a, as the structural equivalence to the claimed interconnection tab, extends from the soldered joint (figs. 4 and 9-10).
Addressing claims 4-5, Takimoto discloses the finger electrode 13a, as the structural equivalence to the claimed interconnection tab, is made of metal that is different form the metallic material of the bus electrode 13b, as the structural equivalence to the claimed n-side metal pad.
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) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamino et al. (US 2022/0102659) in view of Takimoto (WO2016/117180 with provided machine English translation) and Fetzer (US 2018/0151304) as applied to claims 1, 4-10, 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 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter 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 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 09/30/2026
Prosecution Insights