DETAILED ACTION
(1)
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 . Applicant’s amendment filed January 5, 2026, is entered. Applicant amended claims 2, 8 and 10. No new matter is entered. Claims 1-13 are pending before the Office for review. Claims 14-20 remain withdrawn in response to a restriction requirement.
(2)
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 1-13 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 1 requires the multi-layer contact structure comprises a semiconductor substrate with a contact layer structure in intimate contact with the semiconductor substrate. The specification defines “intimate” to mean direct contact. The claim is ambiguous as to what this requires because semiconductor substrate is broadly defined and the contact layer structure is broadly defined. Accordingly, the scope is insolubly ambiguous as to what each feature requires to determine whether the contact is intimate or not. This confusion is evident in claim 2, for example, as it’s unclear whether the PT layer is part of the contact layer structure and whether this requirement of intimate contact extends to the PT layer.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite because its scope is unascertainable to one ordinarily skilled in the art. Claims 2-13 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
(3)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoon et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0157497).
With respect to claim 1, Yoon teaches a multi-layer contact structure comprising a semiconductor substrate, a terminal electrode (610b) and a contact layer structure comprising a metal-containing carrier selective layer (618), the contact layer structure (including a passivation layer and a TCO layer) is in intimate/direct contact with the semiconductor substrate (616). Figure 6 and Paragraphs 35-39.
With respect to claim 2, Yoon teaches the multi-layer structure further comprises a passivating tunnel (617) between the MCS layer (618) and the semiconductor substrate (616). Figure 6 and Paragraph 36.
With respect to claim 3, Yoon teaches, as seen in Figure 6, the contact layer structure has partial area contact with the terminal electrode. Figure 6.
With respect to claim 4, Yoon teaches the multi-layer contact structure further comprises a transparent conductive film (619) disposed such that each layer of the contact layer structure is between the transparent conductive film and the substrate. Figure 6 and Paragraphs 35-39.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Yoon teaches the MCS layer has a thickness of 1 to 20 nm. Paragraph 37.
With respect to claim 7, Yoon teaches the MCS layer comprises a metal oxide or a metal halide. Paragraph 37.
With respect to claim 8, Yoon teaches the passivating tunnel layer has a thickness of about 2 nm or just below that threshold. Paragraph 36.
With respect to claim 9, Yoon teaches the transparent conductive film has a thickness of 50 to 100 nm. Paragraph 38.
(4)
Claims 1-4, 7, 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yi et al. (WO 2019/103570 A1). The citations to Yi refer to the included English language machine translation.
With respect to claims 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7, Yi teaches a multi-layer contact structure comprising a semiconductor substrate (10), a terminal electrode (51) and a contact layer structure in intimate/direct contact with the semiconductor substrate and the terminal electrode, wherein the contact layer structure comprises a passivating tunnel between the substrate and a metal-containing carrier selective layer (VOx, Page 5) and a transparent conductive film disposed such that each other layer of the contact structure is between the transparent conductive film and the substrate. Yi, Figure 1 and Page 5. Yi further teaches the contact layer structure has partial area contact with the terminal electrode. Figure 1.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Yi teaches a solar cell comprising a first electrode, a second electrode and first and second multi-layer contact structures meeting the requirements of claim 1, wherein the first multi-layer contact structure is connected to the first electrode and the second multi-layer contact structure is connected to the second electrode and each multi-layer contact structure has the same semiconductor substrate. Figure 1.
With respect to claim 13, Yi teaches the PT layer of the first multi-layer contact structure is the PT layer of the second multi-layer contact structure, in that the same material of different polarity is used, and the MCS of the first multi-layer contact structure is hole selective and the MCS of the second multi-layer contact structure is electron selective. Yi, Figure 1.
(5)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0157497) in view of Yi et al. (WO 2019/103570 A1). The citations to Yi refer to the included English language machine translation.
With respect to claim 10, Yoon teaches a photovoltaic cell comprising a first electrode (610b), a second electrode (610a), a first multi-layer contact structure, as explained above, but is silent as to the presence of a second contact layer structure connected to the second electrode.
However, Yi, which deals with solar cells, teaches a solar cell comprising a multi-layer contact layer structure associated with each of the first and second electrodes of the solar cell. Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the combination of Yoon with Yi is the use of a known technique to improve a similar solar cell in the same way. Both Yoon and Yi deal with solar cells comprising multi-layer contact structures. Yi teaches a multi-layer contact structure is associated with each electrode. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly form Yoon’s solar cell such that each electrode is associated with a multi-layer contact structure because Yi teaches this to be an effective solar cell design for a charge selective junction solar cell, meaning the modification has a reasonable expectation of success.
With respect to claim 11, modified Yoon teaches the contact layer structure of the second electrode is part of a second multi-layer structure according to claim 1 (metal-containing selective layer and terminal electrode), wherein the substrate of the first multi-layer structure is the same as the second multi-layer structure. Yoon, Figure 6 and Yi, Figure 1.
With respect to claim 12, modified Yoon teaches the first electrode is a front electrode and the first multi-layer contact structure is textured. Figure 6.
With respect to claim 13, modified Yoon teaches the PT layer of the first multi-layer contact structure is the PT layer of the second multi-layer contact structure, in that the same material of different polarity is used, and the MCS of the first multi-layer contact structure is hole selective and the MCS of the second multi-layer contact structure is electron selective. Yoon, Figure 6 and Yi, Figure 1.
(6)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the indefiniteness rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues intimate contact includes direct contact and that the contact layer can be one to four sub-layers, as described in the specification. Applicant argues this means the claim is clear and definite.
Unfortunately, Applicant’s traversal of the art rejection compounds the confusion of claim 1. At several points, Applicant argues the claimed invention does not require a TCO layer. Applicant even suggests that such a layer is excluded from the scope of claim 1. This argument compounds the confusion of claim 1, as Applicant’s argument regarding the art of record contradicts Applicant’s position on the definiteness of the claimed invention. Applicant argues the claim is definite because it includes one to four sub-layers. Applicant’s position does not specify the nature of the sub-layers. In fact, claim 4 includes a TCO within the scope of the contact layer structure. However, when arguing the art rejection, Applicant’s position appears to be that a TCO layer is outside of the scope of the claimed invention. Given the contradictory nature of Applicant’s position, it is Examiner’s position that the claim scope is insolubly ambiguous.
Applicant’s argument regarding Yoon is not persuasive. Applicant argues layer 616 is not a semiconductor substrate within the scope of the claimed invention because it is a thin base layer. Examiner disagrees. Layer 616 is a semiconductor substrate within the scope of the claimed invention because it comprises a semiconductor material and supports and interfaces with adjacent device layers. Additionally, as noted above, the contact layer structure is broadly defined and can include both a TCO and the passivation layer, meaning Yoon does teach intimate/direct contact within the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant’s argument to the contrary appears to suggest in a parenthetical that the claimed invention requires the MCS layer to be in intimate/direct contact with the semiconductor substrate. This argument is inconsistent with the broad scope of the claimed invention.
Applicant next argues Yoon’s thin base layer is interposed between the contact layer structure and the semiconductor substrate. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. It’s unclear what Applicant is interpreting to be the semiconductor substrate in this argument. Yoon’s figure 6 discloses a conductive foil (601) upon which layer 615 is formed. Although 615 is not described in the specification, corresponding layer 415 in figure 4 is described to be a blended bonded layer. Figures 4 and 6 and Paragraph 32. Neither of these layers are semiconductor substrates. The remaining layers (608, 610a) are not semiconductor substrates either as they refer to an electrode structure and, most likely, a BSF. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant also argues the claimed invention does not require a TCO layer. Examiner disagrees. The scope of the claimed invention certainly allows for interpreting a TCO layer to be present. This is confirmed by Applicant’s claim 4, which includes a TCO layer.
Regarding Yi, Applicant restates several of the arguments presented with respect to Yoon. These arguments are again not persuasive because they misunderstand the scope of the claimed invention. Contrary to Applicant’s position, a TCO layer is not excluded from the scope of claim 1 given the broad interpretation allowed by the contact layer structure requirement. Similarly, a tunnelling/passivation layer is not excluded from the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant appears to argue the claimed invention requires that the MCS layer be in intimate/direct contact with the semiconductor substrate, but this is not correct. This is a reasonable interpretation of claim 1, but it is not the broadest reasonable interpretation given the breadth of “contact layer structure” and all that it allows.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
(7)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 ELI S MEKHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/ELI S MEKHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759