DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office Action regarding application number 18/842,949, filed on 08/30/2024, which is a 371 of PCT/CN2023/073936, filed on 01/31/2023, and which claims foreign priority to CN 202210599711.X, filed on 05/30/2022.
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Response received 10/31/2025.
Election of Restricted Inventions
The Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 19, and 20 in the reply is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-20 are currently pending.
Claims 3, 11, and 21-26 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, and 13 are amended.
Claims 9, 10, and 12-18 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 19, and 20 are examined below.
No claim is allowed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2 does not clearly label and distinguish the labeled electrode and TCO film layers in a legible and understandable manner. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI (CN 110797428 A; English machine translation provided) in view of YU (“Preparation and investigation of nano-thick FTO/Ag/FTO multilayer transparent electrodes with high figure of merit”).
Regarding claim 1, LI teaches a solar cell, comprising
a cell substrate (N-type monocrystalline silicon wafer 1) and a conductive layer (first transparent conductive layer 61/first metal conductive layer 81/second transparent conductive layer 62),
wherein the conductive layer comprises a first transparent conductive film, a silver electrode and a second transparent conductive film (first transparent conductive layer 61/first metal conductive layer 81/second transparent conductive layer 62),
the first transparent conductive film is disposed on a surface of the cell substrate (Fig. 2),
the silver electrode is disposed on a partial region of the first transparent conductive film (first metal conductive layer 81 is disposed only on a partial region on top of the first transparent conductive layer 61, not its entirety, as is illustrated in Figure 2), and
the second transparent conductive film covers the silver electrode and the first transparent conductive film (layer 62 covers silver 81).
PNG
media_image1.png
362
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
LI does not disclose expressly that the first transparent conductive film has a thickness greater than that of the second transparent conductive film. In LI’s various embodiments the thicknesses of the first and second transparent conductive films appear to be set to be equal.
YU teaches a multilayer transparent electrode, where the thickness of the first transparent conductive film is set to be 20 nm, and the thickness of the second transparent conductive film is set to be as low as 10 nm (Fig. 4, figure entitled “The dependence of electrical properties of FTO/Ag (7 nm)/FTO multilayers on the top FTO layer thickness.”)
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify LI and set the first transparent conductive film has a thickness greater than that of the second transparent conductive film as taught by YU because the prior art very explicitly recognizes the thicknesses of the two transparent conductive films as result effective variables that function together to directly control optical transmittance as well as other electrical properties (resistivity, carrier concentration, and Hall mobility; see also YU, Figure 4). It can be said that the resistivity value of a 10nm thick second transparent conductive film is less than a 70nm film, and as an electrode, lower resistivity values would generally be preferred and pursued by skilled artisans.
The examiner further determines that the relative thickness taught by LI is “close enough” to the relationship claimed, as it is exceedingly unlikely that the thicknesses of the first and second transparent conductive films are exactly equal to the nanometer based on variability and precision of deposition available at the nanoscale. MPEP 2144.05. Here in LI, the proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Regarding claim 2, modified LI teaches the solar cell according to claim 1, wherein a total thickness of the first transparent conductive film and the second transparent conductive film is 70 nm to 100 nm (LI, para. 13: “the total thickness of the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer is 70-90 nm”).
Regarding claim 4, modified LI teaches the solar cell according to claim 1 wherein the first transparent conductive film has a thickness of 50 nm to 70 nm (as LI teaches that the total thickness of the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer is 70-90 nm, and YU teaches that the second film thickness can be as low as 10nm, then the first layer can be 60 nm thick (70-10=60)).
Regarding claim 5, modified LI teaches the solar cell according to claim 1 wherein the second transparent conductive film has a thickness of 10 nm to 30 nm (YU teaches that the second film thickness can be as low as 10nm).
Regarding claim 7, modified LI teaches the solar cell according to claim 1, wherein the cell substrate comprises a silicon substrate layer (N-type monocrystalline silicon wafer 1), an intrinsic amorphous silicon layer (intrinsic amorphous silicon passivation layer 2), and a doped amorphous silicon layer (phosphorus-doped a-Si:H layer (N-type doped layer) 3), the intrinsic amorphous silicon layer is disposed on the silicon substrate layer, the doped amorphous silicon layer is disposed on a surface of the intrinsic amorphous silicon layer away from the silicon substrate layer, and the first transparent conductive film is disposed on a surface of the doped amorphous silicon layer away from the intrinsic amorphous silicon layer (see LI, Figure 2 having the claimed layer arrangement).
Regarding claim 8, modified LI teaches the solar cell according to claim 1, but does not disclose expressly that the first transparent conductive film and the second transparent conductive film are both doped indium oxide films, and dopant elements in the first transparent conductive film and the second transparent conductive film are each independently selected from a group consisting of tin, tungsten, molybdenum, titanium, gallium, zinc, cerium, hydrogen, and any combination thereof.
YU teaches that other transparent conductive oxide materials are available for selection in the multilayer electrode, such as ZTO/Ag/ZTO (pg. 6, Table 1; ZTO=zinc-doped indium tin oxide).
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to simply replace the first and second transparent conductive film materials with a zinc-doped ITO taught by YU because this is only a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, and is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143. Skilled artisans would possess the knowledge and skill to replace and investigate slightly different TCOs as a matter of routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 19, LI teaches a power generation device, comprising a solar cell,
wherein the solar cell comprises a cell substrate (N-type monocrystalline silicon wafer 1) and a conductive layer (first transparent conductive layer 61/first metal conductive layer 81/second transparent conductive layer 62),
wherein the conductive layer comprises a first transparent conductive film, a silver electrode and a second transparent conductive film (first transparent conductive layer 61/first metal conductive layer 81/second transparent conductive layer 62),
the first transparent conductive film is disposed on a surface of the cell substrate (Fig. 2),
the silver electrode is disposed on a partial region of the first transparent conductive film (first metal conductive layer 81 is disposed only on a partial region on top of the first transparent conductive layer 61, not its entirety, as is illustrated in Figure 2), and
the second transparent conductive film covers the silver electrode and the first transparent conductive film (layer 62 covers silver 81).
LI does not disclose expressly that the first transparent conductive film has a thickness greater than that of the second transparent conductive film. In LI’s various embodiments the thicknesses of the first and second transparent conductive films appear to be set to be equal.
YU teaches a multilayer transparent electrode, where the thickness of the first transparent conductive film is set to be 20 nm, and the thickness of the second transparent conductive film is set to be as low as 10 nm (Fig. 4, figure entitled “The dependence of electrical properties of FTO/Ag (7 nm)/FTO multilayers on the top FTO layer thickness.”)
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify LI and set the first transparent conductive film has a thickness greater than that of the second transparent conductive film as taught by YU because the prior art very explicitly recognizes the thicknesses of the two transparent conductive films as result effective variables that function together to directly control optical transmittance as well as other electrical properties (resistivity, carrier concentration, and Hall mobility; see also YU, Figure 4). It can be said that the resistivity value of a 10nm thick second transparent conductive film is less than a 70nm film, and as an electrode, lower resistivity values would generally be preferred and pursued by skilled artisans.
The examiner further determines that the relative thickness taught by LI is “close enough” to the relationship claimed, as it is exceedingly unlikely that the thicknesses of the first and second transparent conductive films are exactly equal to the nanometer based on variability and precision of deposition available at the nanoscale. MPEP 2144.05. Here in LI, the proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
Regarding claim 20, modified LI teaches the power generation device according to claim 19, wherein a total thickness of the first transparent conductive film and the second transparent conductive film is 70 nm to 100 nm (LI, para. 13: “the total thickness of the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer is 70-90 nm”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI (CN 110797428 A; English machine translation provided) in view of YU (“Preparation and investigation of nano-thick FTO/Ag/FTO multilayer transparent electrodes with high figure of merit”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SATO (KR 20140019100 A; English machine translation provided)
Regarding claim 6, modified LI teaches the solar cell according to claim 1, but does not disclose expressly that the silver electrode contains silver powder therein, and the silver powder comprises flaky silver powder and spherical silver powder.
SATO describes desirable silver conductive paste compositions comprising both a flake shaped silver powder and a spherical silver powder.
Skilled artisans would have found it obvious to modify LI and add flaky and spherical silver powders to the silver electrode composition because this only requires combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143(A). Skilled artisans familiar with the SATO reference would known that this type of flake-spherical silver powder is available and functional, and would not have any difficulty modify the LI reference to employ this mixed composition to achieve a desirable printed silver electrode structure.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELO TRIVISONNO whose telephone number is (571) 272-5201 or by email at <angelo.trivisonno@uspto.gov>. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY-FRIDAY, 9:00a-5:00pm EST. The examiner's supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI, can be reached at (571) 272-3433.
/ANGELO TRIVISONNO/
Primary Examiner