DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action for 18/833,254, filed 7/25/2024, which is a national stage entry of PCT/US2023/012542, filed 2/7/2023, which claims priority to provisional application 63/308,458, filed 2/9/2022.
Claims 28-33, 36-39, and 46-63 are pending in the application; claims 28-33, 36-39, and 46-49 are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments filed 7/6/2026, the rejections under Jo and Fetzer are withdrawn, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn, and the rejections under Vermeesch are modified. New grounds of rejection are also presented herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
Sheng, et al. (Nature Materials, vol. 13, June 2014, pages 593-598): This reference teaches a mechanically stacked multijunction solar cell.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 29 recites “selenium” twice, in lines 3-4. Please delete one of these recitations of selenium. Appropriate correction is required.
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 28-33, 36-39, and 46-49 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 28 recites “the respective semiconductor material” in lines 6-7. This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 28 contains a prior recitation of multiple active layers, each of which comprises a semiconductor material.
Therefore, it is unclear to which semiconductor material is referred in lines 6-7.
The Examiner recommends amending the limitation to recite “each respective semiconductor material.”
Claims 29-33, 36-39, and 46-49 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 28.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0285508 A1).
In reference to Claim 28, Lee teaches an isolated multi-junction photovoltaic (PV) cell (Fig. 10, paragraphs [0067]-[0069]).
The cell of Lee comprises a plurality of photosensitive semiconductor active layers 705 and 713 (paragraphs [0067]-[0068]).
Fig. 10 teaches that each of the active layers 705 and 713 is electrically isolated from each other via EVA or PVB (paragraph [0068]).
Fig. 10 teaches that each of the active layers 705 and 713 is formed from a semiconductor material different from the respective semiconductor material of each other of the other semiconductor layers, the respective semiconductor material being selected so that the corresponding active layer has a different band gap than the other active layer (Abstract).
Fig. 10 teaches that the cell comprises a layer of TCO disposed over a surface of at least one of the active layers, thereby forming an electrical junction with a collector or an emitter of the at least one active layer (paragraphs [0067]-[0068]).
Claims 28 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurtin, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0206219 A1).
In reference to Claim 28, Kurtin teaches an isolated multi-junction photovoltaic (PV) cell (Fig. 8, paragraphs [0067]-[0069] and [0125]).
The cell of Kurtin comprises a plurality of photosensitive semiconductor active layers 20a and 20b (Fig. 8, paragraphs [0079]-[0087]).
Fig. 8 teaches that each of the active layers 20a and 20b is electrically isolated from each other via an insulator 110 (Abstract, paragraph [0138]).
Kurtin teaches that each of the active layers 20a and 20b is formed from a semiconductor material different from the respective semiconductor material of each other of the other semiconductor layers, the respective semiconductor material being selected so that the corresponding active layer has a different band gap than the other active layer (Abstract).
Kurtin teaches that the cell of her invention comprises a layer of transparent conductive oxide (TCO) 70 disposed over a surface of at least one of the active layers, thereby forming an electrical junction (i.e. an electrical connection) with a collector or an emitter of the at least one active layer (Fig. 8, paragraph [0128]).
In reference to Claim 49, Fig. 8 of Kurtin teaches that the cell further comprises a via 72 electrically connecting the top surface of the PV cell to the layer of TCO 70.
Claims 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vermeersch, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0097215 A1).
In reference to Claim 28, Vermeesch teaches an isolated multi-junction photovoltaic (PV) cell (Figs. 3-4, paragraphs [0096]-[0126]).
The cell of Vermeesch comprises a plurality of photosensitive semiconductor active layers 150 and 250 (paragraphs [0096] and [0125]).
Fig. 3 teaches that each of the active layers 150/250 is electrically isolated from each other via insulators 300 (paragraph [0096]).
Vermeesch teaches that the front solar cell of his invention is made of hydrogenated amorphous silicon, and the rear solar cell of his invention is made of hydrogenated microcrystalline silicon (paragraph [0125]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 28, wherein each of the active layers is formed from a respective semiconductor material different from the respective semiconductor material of each of the other active layers (i.e. hydrogenated microcrystalline silicon or hydrogenated amorphous silicon), the respective semiconductor material being selected so that the corresponding active layer has a different band gap than the other active layers.
Vermeesch teaches that the cell of his invention comprises a layer of transparent conductive oxide (TCO) 110 disposed over a surface of at least one of the active layers, thereby forming an electrical junction (i.e. an electrical connection) with a collector or an emitter of the at least one active layer (Fig. 4, paragraph [0121]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eickelmann, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0338364 A1).
In reference to Claim 28, Eickelmann teaches an isolated multi-junction photovoltaic (PV) cell (Figs. 2-5, paragraphs [0028]-[0038]).
The cell of Eickelmann comprises a plurality of photosensitive semiconductor active layers 250a-250d (the formation of each is described in paragraphs [0029]-[0030]).
Figs. 2-5 teach that each of the active layers is electrically isolated from each other via their respective insulating substrates (paragraph [0029]).
Eickelmann teaches that the stacked solar cells of his invention are made of different materials that absorb different wavelengths of light (paragraph [0019]), and that the materials of the solar cells of his invention are different from each other (paragraphs [0020], [0022], and [0031]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 28, wherein each of the active layers is formed from a respective semiconductor material different from the respective semiconductor material of each of the other active layers, the respective semiconductor material being selected so that the corresponding active layer has a different band gap than the other active layers.
Eickelmann teaches that each of the sub-cells of his invention comprises a layer of ZnO as a transparent front contact 240 (Fig. 2D, paragraph [0032]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 28, wherein the PV cell comprises a layer of transparent conductive oxide disposed over a surface of at least one of the active layers, thereby forming an electrical junction (i.e. an electrical connection) with a collector or an emitter of the at least one active layer.
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.
Claims 29, 36-38, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0285508 A1).
In reference to Claim 29, Lee does not teach that the first and second active layers comprise the materials of Claim 29 in the embodiment of Fig. 10.
However, he teaches that a suitable material for the active layer of the upper cell further includes ZnSe (paragraph [0034]), and that a suitable material for the active material for the lower cell includes copper indium selenide (paragraph [0029]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the active layer of the upper cell to comprise ZnSe and the active layer of the lower cell to comprise copper indium selenide, because Lee teaches that these are suitable materials for these layers.
Forming the upper cell to comprise ZnSe and the lower cell to comprise CuInSe2 teaches the limitations of Claim 29, wherein the cell comprises a first (i.e. upper) active layer comprising selenium and a second (lower) active layer comprising copper indium selenide.
In reference to Claim 36, Lee teaches that the first active layer comprises TCO layers on both sides of it (Fig. 10).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 36, wherein the layer of TCO is a first layer, and the PV cell further comprises a second layer of TCO disposed over a second, obverse surface of the first active layer forming an electrical junction with a collector of the first active layer.
In reference to Claim 37, Lee teaches that the cell is formed on a glass substrate 701 (paragraph [0067]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 37, wherein at least one of the active layers is disposed over a transparent insulating substrate 701.
In reference to Claim 38, Lee teaches that the cell is formed on a glass substrate 701 (paragraph [0067]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 38, wherein at least one of the active layers is disposed over a silicon dioxide (i.e. glass) substrate 701.
In reference to Claim 47, Lee teaches that the cell is formed on a glass substrate 701 (paragraph [0067]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 47, wherein the active layers are disposed over an insulation layer 701, the insulation layer comprising silicon dioxide (i.e. glass).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0285508 A1), in view of Hadar, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0139734 A1).
In reference to Claim 46, Lee does not teach that the PV cell of his invention is coupled to the power inverter structure recited in Claim 46.
To solve the same problem of providing a photovoltaic device, Hadar teaches an arrangement in which solar modules are connected with converters 218, controllers 212, and switches 212 in their respective junction boxes (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0018]-[0034]). Hadar teaches that this arrangement provides the benefit of improved safety (paragraphs [0003]-[0009]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the device of Lee to have an arrangement like that taught by Hadar, Figs. 1-2, in order to achieve the taught benefits of this arrangement.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 46, wherein the PV cell is coupled to an inverter (i.e. the inverter 140 of Fig. 1 of Hadar) comprising a plurality of voltage converters 218 (Hadar, Fig. 2, paragraph [0024]).
Hadar teaches that each of the plurality of voltage converters 218 has input terminals comprising a positive input terminal (+ Vin) and a negative input terminal (-Vin), output terminals comprising a positive output terminal (+Vo,,) and a negative output terminal (-Vow), a switch 216 having a control input 212 to open and close the switch 216 responsive to a signal received by the control input (Hadar, paragraph [0031]), and a first switch terminal electrically connected to the positive output terminal (+Vow) or the negative output terminal (-Vow) (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2 of Hadar teaches that the output terminals of the voltage converters are connected in series via the power bus 208.
Figs. 1 and 2 teach that each of the voltage converters 218 is electrically isolated from each other except for their output terminals being connected in series (via power bus 208).
Fig. 1 teach that the assembly of Hadar comprises a DC/AC converter 140 coupled to a positive output terminal (+Vow) of one of the voltage converters and a negative output terminal (-Vow) of one of the voltage converters.
Figs. 1-2 of Hadar teach that the system comprises a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) cells, each of the PV cells having a cathode coupled to the +Vin input terminal of a respective one of the voltage converters and an anode coupled to the -Vin input terminal of its respective one of the voltage converters (Hadar, paragraph [0023]).
Hadar teaches that the arrangement comprises a controller 106 coupled to the respective control inputs of the voltage converter switches, the controller being programmed to modulate each of the respective control inputs to regulate output voltage at the respective output terminal the voltage converters (Fig. 1, paragraph [0018]).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0285508 A1), in view of Mellor, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0328319 A1).
In reference to Claim 48, Lee does not teach that the device of his invention comprises the insulation layer of Claim 48.
To solve the same problem of providing a multijunction solar cell with insulating spacers, Mellor teaches a multijunction solar cell comprising a distributed Bragg reflector 6 disposed between the subcells (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0042]-[0046]).
Mellor teaches that the distributed Bragg reflector has multiple layers of insulating materials with alternating high and low refractive indices (paragraphs [0044]-[0045]).
Mellor additionally teaches that the distributed Bragg reflector of his invention increases light reflection to the top subcell of his invention (paragraph [0100]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have incorporated a distributed Bragg reflector comprising alternating layers of high and low refractive index insulating materials between the photoactive layers of the device of Lee, in order to increase light reflection to the top-most photoactive layer.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 48, wherein the cell further comprises an insulation layer situated between the first active layer and the second active layer that has a refraction index gradient.
It is noted that the limitations “manufactured using plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition” are product-by-process limitations.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Claims 29, 36-39, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtin, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0206219 A1).
In reference to Claim 29, Kurtin does not teach that the active layers necessarily comprise the materials of Claim 29.
However, he teaches that a suitable material for the cells in layer 20a includes CdSe (paragraph [0083]) and a suitable material for the cells in layer 20b includes CuInSe2 (paragraph [0082]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the active layer of the upper cell to comprise CdSe and the active layer of the lower cell to comprise c CuInSe2, because Kurtin teaches that these are suitable materials for these layers.
Forming the upper cell to comprise CdSe and the lower cell to comprise CuInSe2 teaches the limitations of Claim 29, wherein the cell comprises a first (i.e. upper) active layer comprising CdSe and a second (lower) active layer comprising copper indium selenide.
In reference to Claim 36, Kurtin teaches that the first active layer comprises TCO layers 56 and 70 on both sides of it (Fig. 8, paragraph [0128]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 36, wherein the layer of TCO is a first layer, and the PV cell further comprises a second layer of TCO disposed over a second, obverse surface of the first active layer forming an electrical junction with a collector of the first active layer.
In reference to Claim 37, Kurtin teaches that the cell is formed on a glass substrate 54 (paragraph [0104]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 37, wherein at least one of the active layers is disposed over a transparent insulating substrate 54.
In reference to Claim 38, Kurtin teaches that the cell is formed on a glass substrate 54 (paragraph [0104]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 38, wherein at least one of the active layers is disposed over a silicon dioxide (i.e. glass) substrate 54.
In reference to Claim 39, Kurtin teaches that the cell further comprises a first conductor (i.e. one of layers 70) in contact with (i.e. in electrical contact with) a first surface of the at least one of the active layers 20a; and a second conductor (corresponding to one of layers 72) in contact with a transparent conductive oxide (i.e. one of layers 56) disposed over a second, obverse surface of the at least one of the active layers 20b.
Kurtin does not teach that the at least one of the active layers is necessarily electrically connected to a conductor bus in contact with the at least one of the active layers and a layer of transparent conductive oxide (TCO) disposed over the at least one active layer.
However, she teaches that bus bars may be suitably applied to the bottom surfaces of the active layers of her invention, to provide easy interconnection of solar cells (paragraph [0095]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the solar cell of Kurtin to comprise the bus bar he describes in paragraph [0095], because he teaches that this is a suitable configuration for the solar cells of her invention.
Applying bus bars to the bottom surfaces of the active layers of her invention teaches the limitations of Claim 39, wherein at least one of the active layers is electrically connected to a conductor bus in contact with the at least one of the active layers and a layer of transparent conductive oxide (TCO) disposed over the at least one active layer.
In reference to Claim 47, Kurtin teaches that the cell is formed on a glass substrate 54 (paragraph [0104]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 47, wherein the active layers are disposed over an insulation layer 54, the insulation layer comprising silicon dioxide (i.e. glass).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtin, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0206219 A1), in view of Hadar, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0139734 A1).
In reference to Claim 46, Kurtin does not teach that the PV cell of her invention is coupled to the power inverter structure recited in Claim 46.
To solve the same problem of providing a photovoltaic device, Hadar teaches an arrangement in which solar modules are connected with converters 218, controllers 212, and switches 212 in their respective junction boxes (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0018]-[0034]). Hadar teaches that this arrangement provides the benefit of improved safety (paragraphs [0003]-[0009]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the device of Kurtin to have an arrangement like that taught by Hadar, Figs. 1-2, in order to achieve the taught benefits of this arrangement.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 46, wherein the PV cell is coupled to an inverter (i.e. the inverter 140 of Fig. 1 of Hadar) comprising a plurality of voltage converters 218 (Hadar, Fig. 2, paragraph [0024]).
Hadar teaches that each of the plurality of voltage converters 218 has input terminals comprising a positive input terminal (+ Vin) and a negative input terminal (-Vin), output terminals comprising a positive output terminal (+Vo,,) and a negative output terminal (-Vow), a switch 216 having a control input 212 to open and close the switch 216 responsive to a signal received by the control input (Hadar, paragraph [0031]), and a first switch terminal electrically connected to the positive output terminal (+Vow) or the negative output terminal (-Vow) (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2 of Hadar teaches that the output terminals of the voltage converters are connected in series via the power bus 208.
Figs. 1 and 2 teach that each of the voltage converters 218 is electrically isolated from each other except for their output terminals being connected in series (via power bus 208).
Fig. 1 teach that the assembly of Hadar comprises a DC/AC converter 140 coupled to a positive output terminal (+Vow) of one of the voltage converters and a negative output terminal (-Vow) of one of the voltage converters.
Figs. 1-2 of Hadar teach that the system comprises a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) cells, each of the PV cells having a cathode coupled to the +Vin input terminal of a respective one of the voltage converters and an anode coupled to the -Vin input terminal of its respective one of the voltage converters (Hadar, paragraph [0023]).
Hadar teaches that the arrangement comprises a controller 106 coupled to the respective control inputs of the voltage converter switches, the controller being programmed to modulate each of the respective control inputs to regulate output voltage at the respective output terminal the voltage converters (Fig. 1, paragraph [0018]).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtin, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0206219 A1)), in view of Mellor, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0328319 A1).
In reference to Claim 48, Kurtin does not teach that the device of her invention comprises the insulation layer of Claim 48.
To solve the same problem of providing a multijunction solar cell with insulating spacers, Mellor teaches a multijunction solar cell comprising a distributed Bragg reflector 6 disposed between the subcells (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0042]-[0046]).
Mellor teaches that the distributed Bragg reflector has multiple layers of insulating materials with alternating high and low refractive indices (paragraphs [0044]-[0045]).
Mellor additionally teaches that the distributed Bragg reflector of his invention increases light reflection to the top subcell of his invention (paragraph [0100]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have incorporated a distributed Bragg reflector comprising alternating layers of high and low refractive index insulating materials between the photoactive layers of the device of Kurtin, in order to increase light reflection to the top-most photoactive layer.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 48, wherein the cell further comprises an insulation layer situated between the first active layer and the second active layer that has a refraction index gradient.
It is noted that the limitations “manufactured using plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition” are product-by-process limitations.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Claims 29-33, 36-38, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eickelmann, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0338364 A1).
In reference to Claim 29, Eickelmann does not teach that the active layers necessarily comprise the materials recited in Claim 29.
However, he teaches that some of several materials suitable for inclusion as the solar cell materials in the device of his invention include perovskite and CZTSSe (paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the device of Eickelmann so that the active layers of his invention separately include perovskite and CZTSSe, because he teaches that these are suitable materials for the solar cell active layers of the device of his invention.
Forming the device of Eickelmann so that the active layers of his invention separately include perovskite and CZTSSe teaches the limitations of Claim 29, wherein the active layers comprise a first active layer comprising perovskite, and a second active layer comprising CZTSSe.
In reference to Claim 30, Eickelmann does not teach that the active layers necessarily comprise the materials recited in Claim 30.
However, he teaches that some of several materials suitable for inclusion as the solar cell materials in the device of his invention include gallium indium phosphide (written by Eickelmann as InGaP), perovskite and CZTSSe (paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the device of Eickelmann so that the active layers of his invention separately include gallium indium phosphide, perovskite and CZTSSe, because he teaches that these are suitable materials for the solar cell active layers of the device of his invention.
Forming the device of Eickelmann so that the active layers of his invention separately include gallium indium phosphide, perovskite and CZTSSe teaches the limitations of Claim 30, wherein the active layers comprise a first active layer comprising gallium indium phosphide, a second active layer comprising perovskite, and a third active layer comprising CZTSSe.
In reference to Claim 31, Eickelmann does not teach that the active layers necessarily comprise the materials recited in Claim 31.
However, he teaches that some of several materials suitable for inclusion as the solar cell materials in the device of his invention include perovskite, gallium arsenide, CZTSSe, and InGaN (paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the device of Eickelmann so that the active layers of his invention separately include perovskite, gallium arsenide, CZTSSe, and InGaN, because he teaches that these are suitable materials for the solar cell active layers of the device of his invention.
Forming the device of Eickelmann so that the active layers of his invention separately include perovskite, gallium arsenide, CZTSSe, and InGaN teaches the limitations of Claim 31, wherein the active layers comprise a first active layer comprising perovskite, a second active layer comprising gallium arsenide, a third active layer comprising CZTSSe, and a fourth active layer comprising indium nitride (i.e. InGaN, which is an alloy of indium nitride and gallium).
In reference to Claim 32, Eickelmann does not teach that the active layers necessarily comprise the materials recited in Claim 32.
However, he teaches that some of several materials suitable for inclusion as the solar cell materials in the device of his invention include gallium indium phosphide (written by Eickelmann as InGaP), perovskite, gallium arsenide, CZTSSe, and InGaN (paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the device of Eickelmann so that the active layers of his invention separately include gallium indium phosphide (written by Eickelmann as InGaP), perovskite, gallium arsenide, CZTSSe, and InGaN, because he teaches that these are suitable materials for the solar cell active layers of the device of his invention.
Forming the device of Eickelmann so that the active layers of his invention separately include gallium indium phosphide (written by Eickelmann as InGaP), perovskite, gallium arsenide, CZTSSe, and InGaN teaches the limitations of Claim 32, wherein the active layers comprise a first active layer comprising gallium indium phosphide, a second active layer comprising perovskite, a third active layer comprising gallium arsenide, a fourth active layer comprising CZTSSe, and a fifth active layer comprising indium nitride (i.e. InGaN, which is an alloy of indium nitride and gallium).
In reference to Claim 33, Eickelmann does not teach that the active layers necessarily comprise the materials recited in Claim 33.
However, he teaches that some of several materials suitable for inclusion as the solar cell materials in the device of his invention include gallium indium phosphide (written by Eickelmann as InGaP), perovskite, gallium arsenide, CZTSSe, CIGSSe, and InGaN (paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the device of Eickelmann so that the active layers of his invention separately include gallium indium phosphide (written by Eickelmann as InGaP), perovskite, gallium arsenide, CZTSSe, CIGSSe, and InGaN, because he teaches that these are suitable materials for the solar cell active layers of the device of his invention.
Forming the device of Eickelmann so that the active layers of his invention separately include gallium indium phosphide (written by Eickelmann as InGaP), perovskite, gallium arsenide, CZTSSe, CIGSSe, and InGaN teaches the limitations of Claim 33, wherein the active layers comprise a first active layer comprising gallium indium phosphide, a second active layer comprising perovskite, a third active layer comprising gallium arsenide, a fourth active layer comprising CZTSSe, a fifth active layer comprising CIS (i.e. CIGSSe, which comprises copper, indium, and selenium), and a sixth active layer comprising indium nitride (i.e. InGaN, which is an alloy of indium nitride and gallium).
In reference to Claim 36, Eickelmann teaches that the layer of TCO 240 is a first layer (Fig. 2D).
Eickelmann does not teach that the cell necessarily further comprises a second layer of TCO disposed over a second, obverse face of the first active layer forming an electrical junction with the first active layer.
However, he teaches that the rear contact of the device 210 may suitably include a TCO, i.e. ZnOAl (paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed layer 210 to be ZnOAl, because Eickelmann teaches that this is a suitable material for this layer.
Forming layer 210 to be ZnOAl teaches the limitations of Claim 36, wherein the cell further comprises a second layer of TCO disposed over a second, obverse face of the first active layer forming an electrical junction with the first active layer.
In reference to Claim 37, Eickelmann teaches that each of the cells of his invention is formed on a glass substrate 200 (paragraph [0029]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 37, wherein at least one of the active layers is disposed over a transparent insulating substrate 200.
In reference to Claim 38, Eickelmann teaches that the cell is formed on a glass substrate 200 (paragraph [0029).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 38, wherein at least one of the active layers is disposed over a silicon dioxide (i.e. glass) substrate 200.
In reference to Claim 47, Eickelmann teaches that the cell is formed on a glass substrate 200 (paragraph [0029).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 47, wherein the active layers are disposed over an insulation layer 200, the insulation layer comprising silicon dioxide (i.e. glass).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eickelmann, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0338364 A1), in view of Hadar, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0139734 A1).
In reference to Claim 46, Eickelmann does not teach that the PV cell of his invention is coupled to the power inverter structure recited in Claim 46.
To solve the same problem of providing a photovoltaic device, Hadar teaches an arrangement in which solar modules are connected with converters 218, controllers 212, and switches 212 in their respective junction boxes (Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [0018]-[0034]). Hadar teaches that this arrangement provides the benefit of improved safety (paragraphs [0003]-[0009]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have modified the device of Eickelmann to have an arrangement like that taught by Hadar, Figs. 1-2, in order to achieve the taught benefits of this arrangement.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 46, wherein the PV cell is coupled to an inverter (i.e. the inverter 140 of Fig. 1 of Hadar) comprising a plurality of voltage converters 218 (Hadar, Fig. 2, paragraph [0024]).
Hadar teaches that each of the plurality of voltage converters 218 has input terminals comprising a positive input terminal (+ Vin) and a negative input terminal (-Vin), output terminals comprising a positive output terminal (+Vo,,) and a negative output terminal (-Vow), a switch 216 having a control input 212 to open and close the switch 216 responsive to a signal received by the control input (Hadar, paragraph [0031]), and a first switch terminal electrically connected to the positive output terminal (+Vow) or the negative output terminal (-Vow) (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2 of Hadar teaches that the output terminals of the voltage converters are connected in series via the power bus 208.
Figs. 1 and 2 teach that each of the voltage converters 218 is electrically isolated from each other except for their output terminals being connected in series (via power bus 208).
Fig. 1 teach that the assembly of Hadar comprises a DC/AC converter 140 coupled to a positive output terminal (+Vow) of one of the voltage converters and a negative output terminal (-Vow) of one of the voltage converters.
Figs. 1-2 of Hadar teach that the system comprises a plurality of photovoltaic (PV) cells, each of the PV cells having a cathode coupled to the +Vin input terminal of a respective one of the voltage converters and an anode coupled to the -Vin input terminal of its respective one of the voltage converters (Hadar, paragraph [0023]).
Hadar teaches that the arrangement comprises a controller 106 coupled to the respective control inputs of the voltage converter switches, the controller being programmed to modulate each of the respective control inputs to regulate output voltage at the respective output terminal the voltage converters (Fig. 1, paragraph [0018]).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eickelmann, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0338364 A1), in view of Mellor, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0328319 A1).
In reference to Claim 48, Eickelmann does not teach that the device of his invention comprises the insulation layer of Claim 48.
To solve the same problem of providing a multijunction solar cell with insulating spacers, Mellor teaches a multijunction solar cell comprising a distributed Bragg reflector 6 disposed between the subcells (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0042]-[0046]).
Mellor teaches that the distributed Bragg reflector has multiple layers of insulating materials with alternating high and low refractive indices (paragraphs [0044]-[0045]).
Mellor additionally teaches that the distributed Bragg reflector of his invention increases light reflection to the top subcell of his invention (paragraph [0100]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have incorporated a distributed Bragg reflector comprising alternating layers of high and low refractive index insulating materials between the photoactive layers of the device of Eickelmann, in order to increase light reflection to the top-most photoactive layer.
This modification teaches the limitations of Claim 48, wherein the cell further comprises an insulation layer situated between the first active layer and the second active layer that has a refraction index gradient.
It is noted that the limitations “manufactured using plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition” are product-by-process limitations.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections of record under Jo and Fetzer have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of Claim 28 under Vermeesch is not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully maintains the position that Vermeesch teaches that the first and second active layers are made of different semiconductor materials with different band gaps, because amorphous silicon and microcrystalline silicon are different semiconductor materials with different band gaps.
New grounds of rejection are also presented herein.
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 SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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 at 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 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights