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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly amended claims 18-24 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed and elected for the following reasons:
It is noted the elected invention on 11/20/2025 is directed to a solar cell comprising a buffer layer on a light-absorbing layer and a front transparent electrode on the buffer layer, which are not required by the newly amended method, such that the process as claimed is used to make another and materially different product, such as one that does not require a buffer layer and a front transparent electrode stacked on the buffer layer.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 18-24 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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, 8, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibasaki et al. (US 2018/0083150) in view of Kim et al. (KR 2014-0109546; see English machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Shibasaki discloses a bifacial thin film solar cell (see Figure 13; it is disclosed the CIGS thin film solar cell is a top cell that lets light through; [0044]) including:
a rear transparent electrode (first electrode 2) stacked on a transparent substrate (glass; [0024]);
a rear passivation layer (second insulating film 8) stacked on the rear transparent electrode (see Figure 13);
a conductive thin film (dot region 4) pattern formed in some regions on the rear passivation layer (see Figure 13), wherein the conductive thin film pattern has a dot shape or a linear shape (dot region; [0032]), and a plurality of conductive thin film patterns are arranged on the rear passivation layer to be spaced apart from each other (see Figure 9),
the conductive thin film pattern is formed of molybdenum (Mo) ([0034]),
and a total area of the plurality of conductive thin film patterns does not exceed 20% of the area of the rear passivation layer (it is disclosed the aperture ratio is less than 99% or preferably 80 to 99.95%; [0033]);
a light-absorbing layer (3) stacked on the front surface of the rear passivation layer including the conductive thin film pattern (see Figure 13), wherein the light-absorbing layer is formed of CIGS (Cu(In1-x, Gax)(Se,S)2) ([0028]);
a buffer layer (5) stacked on the light-absorbing layer (see Figure 13); and
a front transparent electrode (second electrode 6) stacked on the buffer layer (see Figure 13).
While Shibasaki further discloses the rear passivation layer is formed of an oxide film or a nitride film such as AlOx, SiOx, MgO, (Al, Si, Mg)Ox, SiNx, AlNx, GaNx, and (Si, Al, Ga)Nx ([0062]) on the first electrode 2 made of SnO2 or doped ZnO ([0026]), the reference does not expressly disclose the rear passivation layer is formed of TiOx or TaOx doped with any one element among Nb, Sb, and S.
Kim discloses a CIGS solar cell comprising a multilayer transparent substrate comprising a transparent substrate, interlayer, transparent conductive film, and a protective film ([0008]), where the protective film can be formed of silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, or doped titanium oxide with Nb ([0037]) and the transparent conductive film can be ZnO, SnO2 or a mixture ([0028]), where the protective film protects the transparent conductive film from heat and chemical substances and improves light transmittance ([0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices such as selecting a rear passivation layer formed of doped titanium oxide with Nb in the device of Shibasaki, as taught by Kim above, so that the transparent conductive film below can be protected from heat and chemical substances, as set forth above. It is noted that if a technique is known to improve a device and one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes it would improve similar devices in the same way, the use of the known technique to improve similar devices would be prima facie obvious as the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art unless the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Additionally, since the prior art of Kim recognizes the equivalency of doped titanium oxide with Nb and silicon oxide and aluminum oxide in the field of protective film materials for transparent conductive oxides, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the silicon oxide of Shibasaki with the doped titanium oxide with Nb of Kim as it is merely the selection of functionally equivalent oxide materials recognized in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
While modified Shibasaki does not expressly disclose a stacked thickness of the rear passivation layer is 2 to 4 nm, the reference discloses the thickness can be 1 to 2 nm ([0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed 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 Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 8, modified Shibasaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the conductive thin film pattern has a dot shape ([0035]), and a distance between the conductive thin film patterns which is equal to or less than a carrier diffusion length (LD) in the light-absorbing layer ([0041]).
While Shibasaki does not expressly disclose the conductive thin film pattern has a length or diameter of 0.1 to 2 μm and a thickness of 0.1 to 2 nm, the reference discloses the diameter to be preferably between 6 nm to 10 microns and a height of 2 nm to 50 microns ([0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed 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 Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Regarding claim 13, modified Shibasaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the rear transparent electrode and the front transparent electrode is formed of any one of indium-based oxide, zinc-based oxide, and tin-based oxide, wherein the indium-based oxide is any one of InOx, ITO, (W, Ce, Mo)-doped InOx, and IZO, the zinc-based oxide is (Al, Ga, B, Ti, F, H)-doped ZnOx, and the tin-based oxide is (F, Sb)-doped SnOx ([0026] and [0054]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Shibasaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the buffer layer is provided between the light-absorbing layer and the front transparent electrode, and the buffer layer is formed of any one of CdS, InS(O,OH), ZnS(O, OH), ZnMgO, ZnTiO, ZnSnO, or a combination thereof ([0050]).
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibasaki et al. (US 2018/0083150) in view of Kim et al. (KR 2014-0109546; see English machine translation) in view of Jemaa et al. (“Structural, optical and electrical investigations on Nb doped TiO2 radio-frequency sputtered thin films from a powder target”).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, modified Shibasaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses the titanium oxide is doped in the range of 0.1 to 5% Nb ([0037]), but the reference does not expressly disclose the electrical resistivity of TiOx doped with any one of Nb, Sb, and S is greater than 1 Ω cm.
Jemaa discloses Nb doping improves the electrical conductivity of TNO films, where it can be seen in Figure 6 that the resistivity for 0 to 5% Nb is largely greater than 1 Ω cm and in Figure 7 that transmittance is inversely proportional to resistivity, such that the amount of resistivity and transmittance is optimizable with the content of Nb doping (page 13247).
As the optical transmission and conductivity are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said amount of Nb dopant (and therefore the resistivity), with said optical transmission and conductivity both increasing as the amount of Nb dopant is increased, the precise amount of Nb dopant (and therefore resistivity) would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed resistivity of the Nb doped TiO2 cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of Nb dopant in the apparatus of modified Shibasaki to obtain the desired balance between the optical transmission and conductivity (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the 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 223).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibasaki et al. (US 2018/0083150) in view of Kim et al. (KR 2014-0109546; see English machine translation) in view of Cho et al. (US 2018/0033901).
Regarding claim 9, modified Shibasaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose the conductive thin film pattern has a linear shape, the linear conductive thin film pattern has a width of 0.1 to 2 μm, a thickness of 0.1 to 2 nm, and a distance between the conductive thin film patterns which is equal to or less than a carrier diffusion length (LD) in the light-absorbing layer.
Cho discloses a CIGS thin film solar cell comprising a semitransparent molybdenum electrode layer 210 on a transparent back electrode 200, where the semitransparent molybdenum electrode can have various shapes including dots and a grid (see Figures 5 and 6), where the thickness of the semitransparent molybdenum electrode is 2 nm to 50 nm ([0037]). Cho also discloses for island shaped molybdenum electrode layer, the islands have a diameter of 1-100 nm ([0041]), such that in a grid configuration, the opening portions can be easily adjusted in terms of size and opening ratio for transparency ([0045]) as well as a distance between the conductive thin film patterns which is equal to or less than a carrier diffusion length (LD) in the light-absorbing layer (the opening ratio allows a BSF to form for photoelectric efficiency; [0044])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a known technique to improve similar devices such as selecting a linear shape for the conductive thin film pattern, where the pattern has a width of 1-100 nm and a thickness of 2 nm to 50 nm in the device of Shibasaki, as taught by Cho above, so that the conductive thin film made of molybdenum can be semitransparent and let a desierable amount of light through, as set forth above. It is noted that if a technique is known to improve a device and one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes it would improve similar devices in the same way, the use of the known technique to improve similar devices would be prima facie obvious as the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art unless the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed 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 Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibasaki et al. (US 2018/0083150) in view of in view of Kim et al. (KR 2014-0109546; see English machine translation) in view of Kusunoki et al. (US 2011/0155226).
Regarding claim 15, modified Shibasaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose the front transparent electrode, light-absorbing layer, and rear passivation layer in a specific region are removed to provide a light-transmitting portion region in which the rear transparent electrode is exposed.
Kusunoki discloses it is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a thin film solar cell in a substrate structure as shown in Figure 7 as opposed to Figure 1 of a thin film solar cell base structure, where the front transparent electrode (5), light-absorbing layer (3), and rear passivation layer (corresponding to the Mo back electrode 2) in a specific region are removed to provide a light-transmitting portion region in which the rear transparent electrode is exposed (see Figure 7).
As modified Shibasaki is not limited to any specific examples of the thin film solar cell structure and as a substrate structure with the above recited features was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Kusunoki above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any known structural configuration for the thin-film solar cell, including a structure with the above recited features in the device of modified Shibasaki. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 17, modified Shibasaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose a P1 region is provided in which the rear passivation layer and the rear transparent electrode are removed in a certain area, a P2 region is provided in which the buffer layer and the light-absorbing layer are removed in a certain area, and a P3 region is provided in which the front transparent electrode, the buffer layer, and the light-absorbing layer are removed in a certain area, wherein the rear transparent electrodes of neighboring cells are insulated by the P1 region, the rear transparent electrode and the front transparent electrode of neighboring cells are connected by the P2 region, and the front transparent electrodes of neighboring cells are insulated by the P3 region.
Kusunoki discloses it is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a thin film solar cell in a substrate structure as shown in Figure 7 as opposed to Figure 1 of a thin film solar cell base structure, where a P1 region is provided in which the rear passivation layer and the rear transparent electrode are removed in a certain area (first scribe from the left in Figure 7), a P2 region is provided in which the buffer layer and the light-absorbing layer are removed in a certain area (second scribe from the left in Figure 7), and a P3 region is provided in which the front transparent electrode, the buffer layer, and the light-absorbing layer are removed in a certain area (third scribe from the left in Figure 7),
wherein the rear transparent electrodes of neighboring cells are insulated by the P1 region, the rear transparent electrode and the front transparent electrode of neighboring cells are connected by the P2 region, and the front transparent electrodes of neighboring cells are insulated by the P3 region (see Figure 7).
As modified Shibasaki is not limited to any specific examples of the thin film solar cell structure and as a substrate structure with the above recited features was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Kusunoki above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any known structural configuration for the thin-film solar cell, including a structure with the above recited features in the device of Shibasaki. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibasaki et al. (US 2018/0083150) in view of in view of Kim et al. (KR 2014-0109546; see English machine translation) in view of Kusunoki et al. (US 2011/0155226) in view of Jeong et al. (US 2016/0126376).
Regarding claim 16, modified Shibasaki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but the reference does not expressly disclose the light transmittance of the bifacial thin film solar cell can be controlled by adjusting the area of the light-transmitting portion region.
Jeong discloses scribing a thin film solar cell in the same manner as taught by Kusunoki (see Figures 7A-7E), and that the number of scribing allows free adjustment of light transmittance of the module ([0097]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the number of light-transmitting portion regions, and thus, the area of the light-transmitting portion regions based on the amount of light transmittance desired for the bifacial solar cell, as taught by Joeng above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant argues that Shibasaki does not disclose or suggest the claimed features because they are not a mere aggregation of known features. However, Shibasaki clearly and explicitly taught the claimed features, such that Applicant has not clearly pointed out any reasons in which Shibasaki does not teach the features and has only argued “technical importance”, which is not a proper argument for an anticipation rejection.
Applicant’s argument that the limitation “wherein the rear passivation layer is formed of TiOx or TaOx and has a stacked thickness of 2 to 4 nm” renders technical significance to the claimed invention was not found to be persuasive because it does not clearly point out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes from Shibasaki. Applicant also argues that the claimed invention does not rely on merely reducing the thickness of the rear passivation layer. However, nowhere does the Office Action suggest “merely reducing the thickness” of the rear passivation layer. The rationale for the rejection is based upon overlapping ranges, in which Shibasaki discloses the thickness can be 1 to 2 nm, as set forth above. It is noted that Applicant’s reply is non-responsive to the prior Office Action because nothing has referenced the rejection presented in the prior Office Action.
Therefore, the arguments were not found to be 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 CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights