DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits 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, 46-63 are pending in the application; claims 28-33, 36-39, and 46-49 are considered 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the invention of Group I, Claims 28-33, 36-39, and 46-49 in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Zhao does not teach the technical feature in common between the groups, as claimed in the amendments filed 12/10/2025.
The Examiner notes that the proper citation for the Zhao reference will be included on the front page of any patent that arises from this application.
The Examiner notes that these arguments are persuasive. However, the Examiner maintains the position that restriction between Group I (Claims 28-33, 36-39, and 46-49), Group II (Claims 50-59), and Group III (Claims 60-63) is proper, because the amended technical feature in common between the inventions (i.e. the isolated multijunction solar cell comprising a plurality of photoactive layers electrically isolated from each other, and further comprising 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) is taught by each of Jo, Fetzer, and Vermeesch, as described fully below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0263712 A1: This reference teaches a multijunction solar cell with conductive via contacts (e.g. Fig. 7).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0013430 A1: This reference teaches multijunction cells (e.g. Fig. 19B).
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 46 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 46 recites “a power inverter” in line 1 and “a DC/AC converter” in line 13. It is unclear whether the DC/AC converter is the same as, or different from, or separate from, the “power inverter” in line 1.
Claim 46 also recites “a plurality of PV cells” in line 15. This limitation is indefinite, because Claim 46 depends on Claim 29, which is directed toward a PV cell. Therefore, it is unclear how a PV cell (per the preamble of Claim 46) can further comprise a plurality of PV cells.
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.
Claims 28-33, 36-38, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jo, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0186643 A1).
In reference to Claim 28, Jo teaches an isolated multi-junction photovoltaic cell (Fig. 7, paragraphs [0076]-[0088]).
The cell of Jo comprises a plurality of photosensitive semiconductor active layers 120a, 120b, and 120c (Fig. 7, paragraphs [0080]-[0081]).
Jo teaches that each of the active layers is electrically isolated from the other active layers via insulating layers 130a and 130b (Fig. 7, paragraph [0078]).
Jo teaches that each of the active layers 120a, 120b, and 120c is formed from a respective material having a different band gap than the other active layers (paragraphs [0082]-[0083]).
Jo teaches that the device of his invention comprises a layer 140 of transparent conductive oxide (TCO) disposed over a surface of at least one of the active layers 120c, thereby forming an electrical junction (i.e. an electrical connection) with a collector or an emitter of the at least one active layer (Fig. 7, paragraph [0086]).
In reference to Claims 29 and 31, Jo teaches that the active layers comprise at least one of the following: a first active layer 120c comprising copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS) (paragraph [0081]).
In reference to Claims 30 and 32-33, Jo teaches that the active layers comprise at least one of the following: a second active layer 120b comprising copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS) (paragraph [0081]).
In reference to Claim 36, Jo teaches that the layer 140 of TCO is a first layer.
Jo teaches that the PV cell further comprises a second layer 124c of TCO (i.e. ITO, paragraph [0058]) disposed over a second, obverse surface of the first active layer 120c forming an electrical junction (i.e. an electrical connection) with a collector of the first active layer 120c (paragraphs [0076]-[0077]).
In reference to Claim 37, Jo teaches that the bottom substrate 110 of the device is a transparent layer of glass (paragraph [0057]).
Therefore, Jo teaches that at least one of the active layers is disposed over a transparent insulating substrate (i.e. transparent glass substrate) 110.
In reference to Claim 38, Jo teaches that the bottom substrate 110 of the device is a transparent layer of glass (paragraph [0057]).
Therefore, Jo teaches that at least one of the active layers is disposed over a silicon dioxide (i.e. glass) substrate.
In reference to Claim 47, Jo teaches that the bottom substrate 110 of the device is a transparent layer of glass (paragraph [0057]).
Therefore, Jo teaches that the active layers are disposed over an insulation layer, the insulation layer comprising silicon dioxide (i.e. glass).
Claims 28-33 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fetzer, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0166602 A1).
In reference to Claim 28, Fetzer teaches an isolated multi-junction photovoltaic (PV) cell (Fig. 6, paragraphs [0042]- [0044], which is taught to have the structure of the device shown in Fig. 5, with the addition of insulator 160 and via 162).
The cell of Fetzer comprises a plurality of photosensitive semiconductor active layers 102 (paragraphs [0021]-[0022]) and 154 (Fig. 5, paragraph [0043]).
Fetzer teaches that each of the active layers 102 and 154 are electrically isolated from each other via insulators 160/132 (paragraph [0044]).
Fetzer teaches that the active layer 102 is a Group IV semiconductor (paragraph [0022]) and layer 154 is a perovskite semiconductor (paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, Fetzer teaches that the semiconductor active layers 102 and 154 are formed from respective materials having different band gaps than the other active layers.
Fetzer teaches that the cell comprises a layer of transparent conductive oxide (TCO) 156 disposed over a surface of at least one of the active layers 154, thereby forming an electrical junction with a collector or an emitter of the at least one active layer. Specifically, Fetzer teaches that the layer 156 forms a junction (i.e. an electrical connection) with the active layer 154, by acting as an emitter for layer 154 (paragraph [0043]).
In reference to Claims 29 and 31, Fetzer teaches that the active layers comprise at least one of the following: a first active layer 154 comprising a perovskite (paragraph [0043]).
In reference to Claims 30 and 32-33, Fetzer teaches that the active layers comprise at least one of the following: a second active layer 154 comprising perovskite (paragraph [0043]).
In reference to Claim 49, Fig. 6 teaches that the cell comprises a via 162 electrically connecting a top surface of the PV cell (i.e. top surface of active layer 102) to the layer of TCO (paragraph [0044]).
Claims 28-31, 36-37, 39, and 47 are 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 each of the plurality of photosensitive semiconductor active layers 150 and 250 are formed from a respective material having a different band gap than the other active layers (paragraph [0125]).
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]).
In reference to Claims 29 and 31, Vermeesch teaches that the active layers comprise at least one of the following: a first active layer comprising CdTe (paragraph [0124]).
In reference to Claim 30, Vermeesch teaches that the active layers comprise at least one of the following: a second active layer comprising CdTe (paragraph [0124]).
In reference to Claim 36, Vermeesch teaches that the layer of TCO 110 is a first layer.
Vermeesch further teaches that the PV cell further comprises a second layer of TCO 120 disposed over a second, obverse surface of the first active layer 150 forming an electrical junction (i.e. an electrical connection) with a collector (i.e. an electrical connector/wiring) of the first active layer (Figs. 3-4, paragraphs [0096, [0121]).
In reference to Claim 37, Vermeesch teaches that at least one of the active layers is disposed over a transparent insulating substrate (i.e. a transparent glass substrate, paragraph [0115]).
In reference to Claim 39, Vermeesch teaches that the cell further comprises a first conductor (corresponding to the wire connected to layer 110, as shown in Fig. 3) in contact with (i.e. in electrical contact with) a first surface of the at least one of the active layers 150; and a second conductor (corresponding to the wire connected to layer 120 in Fig. 3) in contact with a transparent conductive oxide 120 disposed over a second, obverse surface of the at least one of the active layers 150.
Vermeesch further teaches that the at least one of the active layers is electrically connected to a conductor bus 180 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 (Figs. 7-12, paragraphs [0132]-[0133]).
In reference to Claim 47, Vermeesch teaches that the active layers are disposed over an insulation layer 200, the insulation layer comprising at least one of silicon dioxide (i.e. glass, paragraph [0116]).
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.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0186643 A1), in view of Hadar, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0139734 A1).
In reference to Claim 46, it is noted that Claim 46 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Jo 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 Jo 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 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetzer, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0166602 A1), in view of Hadar, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0139734 A1).
In reference to Claim 46, it is noted that Claim 46 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Fetzer 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 Fetzer 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 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vermeersch, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0097215 A1), in view of Hadar, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0139734 A1).
In reference to Claim 46, it is noted that Claim 46 is indefinite, as described above. The following rejection represents the Examiner’s best understanding of the indefinite claim limitations.
Vermeesch 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 Vermeesch 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 Jo, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0186643 A1), in view of Mellor, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0328319 A1).
In reference to Claim 48, Jo 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 each of the photoactive layers of the device of Jo, 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).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fetzer, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0166602 A1), in view of Mellor, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0328319 A1).
In reference to Claim 48, Fetzer 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 Fetzer, 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).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vermeersch, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0097215 A1), in view of Mellor, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0328319 A1).
In reference to Claim 48, Vermeesch 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 Vermeesch, 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).
Conclusion
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