DETAILED ACTION
Email Communication
Applicant is encouraged to authorize the Examiner to communicate via email by filing form PTO/SB/439 either via USPS, Central Fax, or EFS-Web. See MPEP 502.01, 502, 502.03.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Terminal disclaimers filed on 9/26/2025 have been disapproved (see decision dated 10/10/2025, which can accessed by Open Data Portal, https://data.uspto.gov/home), and therefore do not place the Application in condition for allowance.
Status of the Rejections
The rejection of claims 1-20 from the Office Action mailed on 07/29/2025 are maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 11,362,230 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the U.S. Patent 11,362,230 B1 encompass all the limitations of the instant claims. The bandgap being further graded from a transition point to a surface of the active layer is taught by further dependent claims that requires different grading in different regions.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent 11,482,636 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the U.S. Patent 11,482,636 B2 encompass all the limitations of the instant claims. The bandgap being further graded from a transition point to a surface of the active layer is taught by further dependent claims that requires different grading in different regions.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent 11,742,448 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the U.S. Patent 11,742,448 B2 encompass all the limitations of the instant claims. The bandgap being further graded from a transition point to a surface of the active layer is taught by further dependent claims that requires different grading in different regions.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 11,784,274 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the U.S. Patent 11,784,274 B2 encompass all the limitations of the instant claims. The bandgap being further graded from a transition point to a surface of the active layer is taught by further dependent claims that requires different grading in different regions.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent 12,027,639 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the U.S. Patent 12,027,639 B2 encompass all the limitations of the instant claims. The bandgap being further graded from a transition point to a surface of the active layer is taught by further dependent claims that requires different grading in different regions.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/800,800 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending application encompass all the limitations of the instant claims. The bandgap being further graded from a transition point to a surface of the active layer is taught by further dependent claims that requires different grading in different regions.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/756,932 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending application encompass all the limitations of the instant claims. The bandgap being further graded from a transition point to a surface of the active layer is taught by further dependent claims that requires different grading in different regions.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Prior-Art
The following are the closest prior art that discloses a multi-junction solar cell as required by instant claims.
US 2004/0065363 A1 to Fetzer et al. is the closest prior art. Fetzer discloses a multijunction photovoltaic cell (400) (fig. 4) comprising an upper first solar subcell (top cell 410, see fig. 4) ([0051]), a second solar subcell (middle cell 430, see fig. 4 and [0051]) adjacent to the first solar subcell (top cell) wherein emitter (432) and base (434) of the second solar subcell (middle subcell) forms a photoelectric junction (p-n junction) ([0035]), a bottom solar subcell (bottom cell 460, fig. 4 and [0051]) disposed under said second solar subcell (430) (see fig. 4).
Fetzer further discloses that base and emitter layer of top cell (GaInP subcell 410) has a graded band gap ([0071-0072]) throughout at least a portion of the thickness of its active layer with a bandgap throughout at least a portion of the thickness of its active layer with a band gap adjacent the junction (junction between emitter and base, or p-n junction) being 1.8 eV ([0071-0072]), and the band gap away from the junction being 1.9 eV ([0071-0072]). Therefore, the band gap adjacent the junction being 0.1 eV or 100 meV lower than the band gap away from the photoelectric junction.
However, instant claim requires band gap adjacent the junction to be 20-300 meV greater than the band gap away from the junction (see instant figure 1D). It would not be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have modify Fetzer to have bandgap greater at the junction than away from the junction as it would teach away from Fetzer’s invention, which is to have lower bandgap at the junction.
US 2003/0070707 A1 to King et al. is another closest prior art that discloses a multijunction solar cell (30) wherein the bandgap adjacent the junction being lower than the band gap away from the junction ([0014]). However, instant claim requires band gap adjacent the junction to be 20-300 meV greater than the band gap away from the junction (see instant figure 1D). It would not be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have modify King to have bandgap greater at the junction than away from the junction as it would teach away from King’s invention, which is to have lower bandgap at the junction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues that the TDs filed on 09/26/2025 overcome the double-patenting rejection. However, the TDs have been disapproved. Applicant needs to file new TDs.
All 7 TDs have been disapproved with this filing date:
1. For the TD over 18/756,932 - the filing date is incorrect.
2. For all 7 TDs - For cases filed on/after 9/16/2012, 37 CFR 1.321 specifies that the applicant can disclaim, and the terminal disclaimer must specify the extent of the applicant’s ownership.
To remedy this:
A request under 37 CFR 1.46(c) to change the applicant needs to be filed, which is (1) a request, signed by a 1.33(b) party, (2) a corrected ADS (37 CFR 1.76(c)) that identifies the “new” applicant in the applicant information, and is underlined since it is new, and (3) a 3.73(c) statement showing chain of title to the new applicant. Along with the § 1.46(c) request we need a POA that gives power to the attorney who is signing the TD, along with another copy of the TD, unless they file a TD that is signed by the applicant.
Note: The applicant cited on the TD must be cited exactly as it is cited on the ADS and or filing receipt and also in its entirety. If more space for applicant section is required, please use smaller fonts or submit an attachment page to the TD.
Please make corrections as suggested above and also resubmit all 7 TDs. (No new fee required).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Correspondence/Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GOLAM MOWLA whose telephone number is (571)270-5268. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7am - 4pm.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached on 303-297-4684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GOLAM MOWLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721