DETAILED ACTION
This is the second 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 04/15/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 are currently pending.
Claims 3, 6, 11, 14 and 21-26 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, and 13 are amended.
Claims 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15-18 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 19, and 20 are examined below.
The Office’s objections to the Drawings are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments. The examiner thanks the applicant for the clarified drawings.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
Upon further examination, the Office has set forth a new ground of rejection.
No claim is allowed.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments received 04/15/2026 have been carefully considered but they are not found persuasive.
The applicant amends the claims to require that the independent claims 1 and 19 now include the limitations of now-canceled claim 6. The examiner relied on the SATO reference to explain that skilled artisans would understand the use of a silver powder comprising flaky silver and spherical silver powders to be obvious. The applicant does not yet address the SATO reference at this time. The examiner reasserts its position that the SATO reference renders this feature obvious and well-known.
The applicant also remarks that the YU reference relates to a fundamentally different structure formed by a different process of manufacture, and that there is “no teaching or suggesting in LI or YU to adopt the thickness relationship of YU in the context of LI.” Remarks 8. The examiner does not adopt the applicant’s position at this time, primarily because it appears to be based entirely on attorney argument. Neither reference teaches away or criticizes the modifications, and the claims also include no limitations related to film morphology or other feature directly caused by a particular method of layer fabrication.
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”) and SATO (KR 20140019100 A; English machine translation provided).
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.
LI 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 know 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.
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.
LI 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 know 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.
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”).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The 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). The Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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.
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
Prosecution Insights