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 .
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 requires “performing an optical and thermal treatment on the heterojunction cell,” last line. The scope of this limitation cannot be determined. It is unclear if two separate processes, one optical and one thermal, are performed or if one process that is both optical and thermal is performed. It is further unclear if ‘optical’ means the process itself uses an optical phenomenon or if the process affects the optical properties of the heterojunction cell.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shi et al. (CN 111710759 A).
In reference to claim 12, Shi et al. (CN 111710759 A), hereafter “Shi,” a machine translation of which is included herewith and cited herein, discloses, with reference to Figure 1, a heterojunction cell wherein the heterojunction cell comprises: a cell body 100-103; a transparent conductive film layer 104; and a metal electrode 105, paragraph 33, the transparent conductive film layer is disposed on the cell body, a surface at one side of the transparent conductive film layer that faces away from the cell body is an electrode fixing surface, and the electrode fixing surface has a surface energy that is greater than or equal to 40 mN/m, and the metal electrode is provided on the electrode fixing surface, paragraph 21 (0.1 J/m2 = 100 mN/m).
In reference to the heterojunction cell being manufactured using the method according to claim 1, this is a product by process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113. In this case, the process of claim 1 does not result in a structural difference, as the structure of Shi achieves a surface energy within the claimed range.
In reference to claim 14, Shi discloses the cell body has a light-receiving surface and a backlighting surface, the transparent conductive film layer comprises a first transparent conductive film layer and a second transparent conductive film layer, the first transparent conductive film layer is provided on the light-receiving surface, and the second transparent conductive film layer is provided on the backlighting surface, a surface at one side of the first transparent conductive film layer that faces away from the light-receiving surface is a first electrode fixing surface, a surface at one side of the second transparent conductive film layer that faces away from the backlighting surface is a second electrode fixing surface, the first electrode fixing surface has a surface energy greater than or equal to 40mN/m; and/or the second electrode fixing surface has a surface energy greater than or equal to 40mN/m, Figure 1 and paragraphs 38-40.
In reference to claim 15, Shi discloses a photovoltaic assembly comprising the heterojunction cell according to claim 12, implied by paragraphs 5 and 10.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (CN 111710759 A) in view of ‘The Relation between the electrical, chemical, and morphological properties of indium-tin-oxide layers and double-layer light emitting diode performance,’ by Vacca et al.
In reference to claim 1, Shi discloses a method for preparing a heterojunction cell, comprising:
manufacturing a heterojunction cell, Figure 1 and paragraph 38; and
treating a surface of the heterojunction cell to obtain the heterojunction cell with a surface energy greater than 40mN/m, paragraphs 16, 21, and 39, (0.1 J/m2 = 100 mN/m).
Shi does not disclose irradiating a surface of the heterojunction cell using a single type of UV light or a combination of multiple types of UV light to obtain the heterojunction cell with a surface energy greater than 40mN/m.
Vacca et al. disclose in ‘The Relation between the electrical, chemical, and morphological properties of indium-tin-oxide layers and double-layer light emitting diode performance,’ hereafter “Vacca,” methods of treating surfaces including teaching irradiating a surface using a single type of UV light or a combination of multiple types of UV light to obtain a surface energy greater than 40mN/m, UV ozone- HCl treatment in Table 1 and under the heading ‘Experimental Section.’
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to irradiate a surface of the heterojunction cell using a single type of UV light or a combination of multiple types of UV light to obtain the heterojunction cell with a surface energy greater than 40mN/m.
To do so would have merely been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, (2007), MPEP 2143 I. B. In this case substituting one treatment method for another to modify a structure’s surface energy.
In reference to claim 11, Shi discloses manufacturing the heterojunction cell comprises: manufacturing a cell body 100-103; depositing a transparent conductive film layer 104 on a front surface and a back surface of the cell body; providing a metal electrode 105 on a surface of the transparent conductive film layer; and drying and curing the metal electrode, Figure 1 and paragraphs 38-40.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (CN 111710759 A) in view of ‘The Relation between the electrical, chemical, and morphological properties of indium-tin-oxide layers and double-layer light emitting diode performance,’ by Vacca et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Levy et al. (US 2016/0268455).
In reference to claim 10, Shi does not disclose performing an optical and thermal treatment on the heterojunction cell.
Levy et al. (US 2016/0268455) discloses a method of making a heterojunction cell including teaching performing an optical and thermal treatment on the heterojunction cell, laser processing step 150 in Figure 1, paragraphs 41-46.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform an optical and thermal treatment on the heterojunction cell after said irradiating the surface of the heterojunction cell using the single type of UV light or the combination of multiple types of UV light, and/or after said manufacturing the heterojunction cell and before said irradiating the surface of the heterojunction cell using the single type of UV light or the combination of multiple types of UV light.
One would have been motivated to do so in order to apply a dopant for contact regions, paragraph 43.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (CN 111710759 A) in view of Yamauchi et al. (WO 2016/143715 A1).
In reference to claim 13, Shi does not disclose the electrode fixing surface has a surface energy that is greater than or equal to 60mN/m and that is less than or equal to 80mN/m.
Yamauchi et al. (WO 2016/143715 A1), a machine translation of which is included herewith and cited herein, discloses an analogous process including teaches an electrode fixing surface has a surface energy that is greater than or equal to 60mN/m and that is less than or equal to 80mN/m, page 7 (40-65 mN/m). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the fixing surface to have a surface energy that is greater than or equal to 60mN/m and that is less than or equal to 80mN/m. One would have been motivated to do so in order to stably form a fine sized wire pattern with good adhesion, top of page 50.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 are 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.
Claim 2 would be allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the method comprised of irradiating the surface of the heterojunction cell using the single type of UV light comprises: irradiating the surface of the heterojunction cell using a single type of Ultraviolet C (UVC); in combination with the other recited limitations in the base claim.
Claims 3 and 4 depend on claim 2 and would be allowable in combination with the other recited limitations of the base claims.
Claim 5 would be allowable because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the method comprised of irradiating the surface of the heterojunction cell using the combination of multiple types of UV light comprises: irradiating the surface of the heterojunction cell using Ultraviolet A (UVA) and Ultraviolet B (UVB) or using Ultraviolet C (UVC) of different wavelengths; in combination with the other recited limitations in the base claim.
Claims 6-8 depend on claim 5 and would be allowable in combination with the other recited limitations of the base claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huh et al. (KR 20020092643) discloses an ITO surface with a surface energy of about 70 erg/cm2 (equal to 70 mN/m) and Celle et al. (EP 3621124 A1) discloses treatment to an ITO layer of a photovoltaic structure to achieve a surface energy less than 40 mJ/m2 (equal to 40 mN/m) Figure 2, (21-22 mJ/m2 example 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R. JUNGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5717. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 CT.
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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (571)270-7996. 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.
/BRYAN R JUNGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
