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 submitted claims 17-21 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons, claims 17-21 are directed to a subcombination, while originally presented claims 6,7,9,10,12,15, and 16 is directed to a combination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because it does not require the silicon nanowires be grown on an n-type silicon wafer or that the substrate is cleaned in the particular manner as noted in claim 17. The subcombination has separate utility such as being used to form a photodetector.
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 Accordingly, claims 17-21 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 recites “wherein, the tunneling layer is
arranged between the top electrode light-transmitting layer and the n-type transmission layer” and is dependent on claim 6 which recites “constructing a tunneling layer of a gold film on the top electrode light-transmitting layer before preparing the n-type transmission layer on the top electrode light-transmitting layer”, therefore it is unclear how claim 12 further limits since claim 6 requires that the tunneling layer is between the top electrode light-transmitting layer and the n-type transmission layer. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 6, 9, 10, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima (US 2019/0081189 A1) in view of Zhang (CN 107369767 A, Machine Translation) in view of Korevaar (US 20080047604 A1) in view of Yu (US 20150000730 A1) in view of Liu (CN 111244210 A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 6, 12, 14, and 15, Mishima discloses a preparation method for a three-dimensional framework silicon/perovskite tandem solar cell is in a formal structure, and the preparation method for the three-dimensional framework silicon/perovskite tandem solar cell comprises the following steps:
step 1: preparing an n-type silicon texture on a silicon substrate (see Fig. 1, 42, [0033]);
step 2: sequentially depositing an i-type intrinsic amorphous silicon layer (45 [0033][0030][0093]), a p-type amorphous silicon layer (41 [0093][0028-[0031]]) and a top electrode (30 [0047]) light-transmitting layer on the n-type silicon texture; and
step 3: sequentially preparing an n-type transmission layer (23 [0046]), a perovskite film (22 [0046][0070]), a p-type transmission layer (21[0072]), and a transparent electrode (11) on the top electrode light-transmitting layer (31) to obtain the three- dimensional framework silicon/perovskite tandem solar cell.
However, Mishima does not disclose a buffer layer between the p-type transmission layer (hole transport layer) and the transparent electrode.
Zhang discloses a buffer layer (see Fig. 1, B, see pg. 3) between the p-type transmission layer (hole transport layer) and the transparent electrode (layer T) and this layer is provided to protect the cell from transparency electrode damage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the interface between the transparent electrode and p-type hole transport layer of Mishima by adding a buffer layer as disclosed Zhang because it will protect the cell from transparency electrode damage.
Mishima discloses that the silicon substrate is textured, however, does not disclose that the substrate is provided with silicon nanowires.
Korevaar discloses that a silicon substrate can be formed with nanowires and intrinsic silicon layer and an oppositely doped silicon layer to form a silicon solar cell ([0069][0070]).
Korevaar discloses that this type of silicon solar cell structure has low reflectivity in comparison to other solar cells (see Fig. 11 [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the silicon solar cell of modified Mishima by using silicon nanowires and depositing the intrinsic layer and oppositely doped layer to the substrate conformally as disclosed by Korevaar because Korevaar discloses that this type of silicon solar cell structure has low reflectivity in comparison to other solar cells and one would want to increase light absorption by the solar cell.
Note modification above with Koreevar used to grow silicon nanowires.
In addition, Koreevar discloses wherein the preparation method further comprises: preparing metal film such as indium nanoparticles on a surface of the substrate before preparing the n-type silicon nanowire on the substrate ([0062]).
However, Korevaar does not disclose that the metal film nanoparticles are formed of Sn.
Yu discloses the growth of silicon nanowires by a VLS method has been made, using as a metal catalyst indium, tin or gallium ([0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the catalyst metallic particle film to grow the silicon nanowires by using tin film nanoparticles instead of indium because Yu discloses it can be used as a catalyst material to grow silicon nanowires.
However, modified Mishima does not disclose constructing a tunneling layer of a gold film on the top electrode light-transmitting layer before preparing the n-type transmission layer on the top electrode light-transmitting layer.
Mishima discloses two TCO layers (31 and 32) which are directly adjacent and between the silicon (3) and perovskite solar cell (2) (See Fig. 1).
Liu discloses a tunneling layer can be formed of a TCO/Au/TCO on silicon layers which are part of a solar cell before forming a perovskite solar cell (See pg. 2 and pg. 3 Example 1).
It would have been obvious to modify the solar cell of Mishima by forming an additional Au layer on the TCO layer (32) before forming the second TCO layer (31) to form a tunnel junction having a TCO/Au/TCO structure between the silicon solar cell and the perovskite solar cell because Liu discloses this structure serves to electrically interconnect the silicon and perovskite solar cell.
Modified Mishima discloses the instantly claimed method and therefore the resulting structure will have the claimed “wherein then-type silicon nanowire is multiple in quantity arranged in a spatial array· the i-type intrinsic amorphous silicon layer, the p-type amorphous silicon layer, the top electrode light transmitting layer, the tunneling layer, the n-type transmission layer, the perovskite thin film, the p-type transmission layer the buffer layer and the transparent electrode are sequentially deposited around each of the multiple n-type silicon nanowires by a layer-by-layer manner to form the three-dimensional framework silicon/perovskite tandem solar cell”.
Regarding claim 9, modified Mishima discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Mishima discloses the perovskite film is prepared by liquid-phase spin coating, vacuum vapor phase deposition or liquid-phase assisted vapor phase method ([0073][0096]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Mishima discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Mishima discloses the n-type transmission layer is prepared by vapor
deposition, magnetron sputtering, liquid phase spin coating/spraying or chemical water bath deposition; and the p-type transmission layer is prepared by liquid phase spin
coating, vacuum vapor phase deposition or magnetron sputtering ([0073]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Mishima discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Korevaar discloses that a length of the n-type silicon nanowire is 1000 nanometers (nm) to 100 microns and a diameter is 5 nm to 1 micron ([0049]).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima (US 2019/0081189 A1) in view of Zhang (CN 107369767 A, Machine Translation) in view of Korevaar (US 20080047604 A1) in view of Yu (US 20150000730 A1) in view of Liu (CN 111244210 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 6, 9, 10, 12-15 above and in further view of Fang (US 2017/0162809 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Mishima discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Mishima discloses that the ETL layer can be formed from a metal oxide such as TiO2 [0069] and can be formed by spin-coating ([0073]
However, Mishima does not disclose wherein an annealing temperature of the n-type transmission layer (23) is 150 Celsius degrees (°C) to 500°C for 30 minutes (min) to 60 min.
Fang discloses an SnO2 ETL layer which is deposited by spin coating and annealing the electron transport layer at 180-400° C. for 30 min ([0020]) and that this type of material reduces fabrication cost and is very stable in comparison to TiO2 [0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the ETL and method of forming the ETL of Mishima by using the material and method as disclosed by Fang because this type of material reduces fabrication cost and is very stable in comparison to TiO2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference 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 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