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
Claims 22 and 23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, a method of fabricating a TPV device, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/06/2023.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to claims 1-21, a thermophotovoltaic (TPV) device in the reply filed on 11/06/2025 is acknowledged.
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 11-15 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 11 recites “a second III-V alloy” which is unclear because no first III-V alloy is recited. It is unclear if there is supposed to a first III-V alloy. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
Claims 14 recites “a second III-V alloy” and “a third III-V alloy” which is unclear because no first III-V alloy is recited. It is unclear if there is supposed to a first III-V alloy. 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) 1-9 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura (JP 2019047685 A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 16, Miura discloses a thermophotovoltaic (TPV) device comprising (see Figs. 1-8 [0012]-[0054]) :
an emitter (see Fig. 1, 30) comprising a base (see Fig. 1 30-portions that are not etched, backside of substrate 30) a platform (See Fig. 1, 30-all remaining portions of frontside of substrate) and;
a block comprising a photovoltaic (PV) cell (10, see Fig. 1); and
three posts (34 and 28, terrace structure (34) is coupled with (28) see Fig. 1b, four posts includes three posts), wherein: each post is paired with a gap (See Fig. 1, post is surrounded by gaps on either side, 38 [0020]) that separates the post from the platform, and each gap is between 0.5 μm and 500 μm in the x-axis direction ([0202] 202 microns),
and the TPV device (InGaAs is capable of converting near infrared, see Forrest (US 5479032 A) for evidence, C1/L60-C2/L10) is capable of converting at least one of near-infrared light or mid-infrared light to electricity and the posts separate the first surface from the second surface by a space in the y-axis direction between 1 nm and 1,000 nm (see h1, Fig. 1, [0021], 100 nm).
Miura discloses that the near-field light formed near the surface of the emitter 30 is incident on the photovoltaic element 10 ([0020]).
The surface are area of the platform of the emitter and the photovoltaic element will determine the amount of near-filed light converted and also the cost of the device.
However, Miura does not disclose the platform comprises a first surface having a first surface area between 0.1 cm2 and 1,000 cm2, the PV cell comprises a second surface having a second surface area between 0.1 cm2 and 1,000 cm2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the first surface area of the platform and the second area of the PV cell to be within the range claimed because it will allow for an optimization of near-field light conversion and cost.
Regarding claim 3, modified Miura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Miura discloses wherein each post has a length dimension in the x-axis direction between 1 μm and 250 μm ([0020] 100 μm ).
Regarding claim 4, modified Miura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Miura discloses each post comprises a column (34) and tab (28),
each column (34) is positioned between tab (28) and the base(see Fig. 1 30-portions that are not etched, backside of substrate 30), and the tab has thickness in the y-axis direction that is about equal to the space ([0021]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Miura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Miura discloses wherein the emitter is configured to operate at a first
temperature between 100 °C and 2500 °C ([0023]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Miura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Miura discloses wherein the first temperature is between 200 °C and 600 °C ([0046]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Miura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Miura discloses wherein the block is configured to operate at a second temperature between -200 °C and 500 °C ([0046]).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, modified Miura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Miura discloses wherein the PV cell is constructed of a semiconductor having bandgap between 0.1 eV and 2.0 eV ([0024] 0.73 eV) and is constructed using a first III-V alloy ([0024]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Miura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Miura discloses wherein the block further comprises a substrate (see Fig. 7a , 11, 12, 24 and 27), and the PV cell (layers 14, 16, 18, 20 and 22) is positioned on the substrate (see Fig. 7a , 11, 12, 24 and 27).
Regarding claim 18, modified Miura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In additional embodiments see Fig. 7 there are posts which are directly on substrate (See 7a and 7b, portions of 30 which are directly on 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of forming the posts so that the posts are formed in a similar manner to posts 34 as disclosed by Miura since it will allow for a spacer structure to separate the emitter from solar cell and Miura discloses that separation structures can be formed this way.
Regarding claim 19, modified Miura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Miura discloses a front contact (22 [0036][0045]) comprising a grid positioned on the second surface of the PV cell, wherein: the grid (22) is positioned in the space without physically touching the first surface of the emitter (See Fig. 1 and 7).
Regarding claim 20, modified Miura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Miura discloses [0041] a trench formed in the first surface of the emitter, wherein: the grid (22) is positioned within the trench such that the grid does not physically contact the first surface of the emitter (See Figs. 1 and 7).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura (JP 2019047685 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1-9 and 16-20 above, and further in view of Mittapally (Near-Field Thermophotovoltaic Energy Conversion: Progress and Opportunities).
Regarding claim 10, modified Miura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Miura discloses that the PV cell is constructed using a III-V alloy (InGaAs) however does not disclose that the alloy comprises InAs.
Mittapally discloses that a III-V solar cell which can be paired with an emitter can include InGaAs (See Table 2) or InAs and have a higher efficiency (See Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the III-V solar cell of Miura with III-V InAs solar cell of Mittapally because it is an alternate solar cell material type which can couple with an emitter to harness thermal radiation.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, modified Miura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Miura discloses that the emitter which include base, platform and post (34) is formed from tungsten, however, does not disclose that the emitter is formed of a III-V material.
Mittapally discloses that an emitter can be formed of tungsten (see Tables I and II) and coupled with III-V solar cells or an emitter formed of a semiconducting material (see Tables I and II).
In an additional embodiment Mittapally disclose that the emitter can comprise a III-V semiconducting material and can be coupled with a III-V solar cells (see Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace the tungsten emitter of Miura with III-V emitter of Mittapally because it is an emitter material type which can coupled with III-V solar cell to harness thermal radiation.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura (JP 2019047685 A, Machine Translation) in view of Mittapally (Near-Field Thermophotovoltaic Energy Conversion: Progress and Opportunities) as applied to claims 10-12 above, and further view of Legendre (GaAs-based near-field thermophotonic devices: Approaching the idealized case with one-dimensional PN junctions).
Regarding claim 13, modified Miura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Miura discloses that the emitter is formed of a III-V material (AlGaAs, see modification in claim 11).
However, Miura does not disclose that the emitter is formed of GaAs.
Legendre discloses that an emitter can be formed of an alternate III-V material which includes GaAs (See Abstract and Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of filing to replace the III-V material emitter of modified Miura with the GaAs emitter of Legendre because it is an emitter material type which can coupled with III-V solar cell to harness thermal radiation.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura (JP 2019047685 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 1-9 and 16-20 above, and further in view of Nishida (US 2009/0050190 A1).
Regarding claim 21, modified Miura discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Miura does not disclose a via passing through at least one of the PV cell or the substrate, wherein: the outer circumference of the via is lined with an insulator, and the remainder of the via is at least partially filed with an electrical connection connected to the grid.
Nishida discloses a via (See Fig. 5, 23 and 24 in via) passing through at least one of the PV cell or the substrate, wherein: the outer circumference of the via is lined with an insulator (24), and the remainder of the via is at least partially filed with an electrical connection (23) connected to the grid (30) (See Fig. 6) [0091]-[0095] and discloses that this allows for electrical connections to be routed to the backside of the solar cell and the wiring is firmly bonded ([0023][0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the electrical connection to the front side of the solar of modified Miura by having a via passing through at least one of the PV cell or the substrate, wherein: the outer circumference of the via is lined with an insulator, and the remainder of the via is at least partially filed with an electrical connection connected to the grid as disclosed by Nishida because this allows for electrical connections to be routed to the backside of the solar cell and firmly bonded electrical connections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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