Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/853,895

SI-BASED THERMOPHOTOVOLTAIC CELL WITH INTEGRATED AIR BRIDGE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 03, 2024
Examiner
BUCK, LINDSEY A
Art Unit
1728
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
The Regents Of The University Of Michigan
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
49%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 49% of resolved cases
49%
Career Allow Rate
332 granted / 679 resolved
-16.1% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
719
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
42.2%
+2.2% vs TC avg
§102
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
§112
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 679 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION 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 . 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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 9/03/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 9 is directed to an optoelectronic device and is included in Group I. Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/03/2025. Claim Objections Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 should be amended to read “wherein the cavity is filled with one of air or magnesium fluoride”. 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. Claim 7 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 7 contains the limitation “wherein thickness of the silicon material is reduced after the formation of the one or more lateral p-n junctions and before the thermophotovoltaic cell is bonded to the spacer layer”. It is unclear what structural limitations are required by the claim. Appropriate correction and clarification are required. For the purpose of this Office Action, claim 7 will not be further treated on the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 1-2, 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fan et al. (“Near-perfect photon utilization in an air-bridge thermophotovoltaic cell”). Regarding claim 1, Fan discloses an optoelectronic device in Figures 1 and 2h, comprising: a substrate (Si substrate, Figure 2h); a reflector (Au reflector layer) disposed on the substrate (Figure 2h and page 239); a spacer layer disposed on the reflector (Figures 1 and 2h, spacer layer is between the Au reflector layer and the TPV cell); and a thermophotovoltaic cell (TPV cell shown in Figures 1 and 2h), disposed on to the spacer layer, such that the spacer layer is arranged between the reflector (Au reflector layer) and the thermophotovoltaic cell (TPV cell) and the spacer layer includes a cavity which extends between the reflector and the thermophotovoltaic cell (spacer layer is between the Au reflector layer and the TPV cell and provided an airbridge cavity as shown in Figures 1 and 2h and disclosed in the abstract); wherein the thermophotovoltaic cell (TPV cell) is comprised of silicon material with one or more lateral p-n junctions formed therein (As shown in Figure 2h, the TPV cell has a lateral p-n junction and is composed of a layer of P+ InP doped with Be, n-InGaAs doped with Si, n+ InP doped with Si. The TPV cell includes a silicon material which reads on the claim limitation “comprised of silicon material”. It is noted that the limitation “comprised of” allows other materials to be used in the cell as long as silicon is also present). Regarding claim 2, Fan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Fan additionally discloses that the thermophotovoltaic cell is configured to convert radiating thermal energy incident thereon into electrical energy (abstract). Regarding claim 5, Fan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Fan additionally discloses that the reflector is gold (Figure 2h, page 239, Au BSR). Regarding claim 6, Fan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Fan additionally discloses that the cavity is filled with one of air of magnesium fluoride (air bridge, Figure 2g-h, abstract and page 239). Regarding claim 8, Fan discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Fan additionally discloses that the thermophotovoltaic cell is bonded to the spacer layer using cold weld bonding (Figure 2b and figure description). Claims 1-2, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Venkatasubramanian (US 2011/0198570). Regarding claim 1, Venkatasubramanian discloses an optoelectronic device in Figure 9 and [53], comprising: a substrate (electrical insulator layer 99) (Figure 9 and [53]); a reflector (96) disposed on the substrate (99) (As discussed in [52]-[55], the substrate can be a metal material which reads on a reflector. Further, while layer 96 is described as a “blackbody” in [53]-[55], “blackbody” is a theoretical term and the material forming the “blackbody” necessarily reflects to some extent which satisfies the claim limitations); a spacer layer (nano-dots spacer layer 94) disposed on the reflector (96) ([53]); and a thermophotovoltaic cell (p-n junction 98) disposed on to the spacer layer (94), such that the spacer layer (94) is arranged between the reflector (96) and the thermophotovoltaic cell (98) and the spacer layer (94) includes a cavity (gap) which extends between the reflector (96) and the thermophotovoltaic cell (98) (Figure 9 and [53]); wherein the thermophotovoltaic cell is comprised of silicon material ([53], p-n junction can be made of Si) with one or more lateral p-n junctions formed therein (Figure 9 and [53]). Regarding claim 2, Venkatasubramanian discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Venkatasubramanian additionally discloses that the thermophotovoltaic cell is configured to convert radiating thermal energy incident thereon into electrical energy ([53]-[54]). Regarding claim 6, Venkatasubramanian discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Venkatasubramanian additionally discloses that the cavity is filled with one of air or magnesium fluoride ([53], one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand based on the disclosure that the gap is filled with air). Regarding claim 8, Venkatasubramanian discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Regarding the limitations recited in claim 8 which are directed to method of making the optoelectronic device (e.g. “wherein the thermophotovoltaic cell is bonded to the spacer layer using cold weld bonding”), it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114. Venkatasubramanian discloses that the thermophotovoltaic cell is bonded to the spacer layer using a bonding method without heating such as ultrasonic bonding ([45]). The structure of the optoelectronic device disclosed by Venkatasubramanian is the same as the structure of the optoelectronic device required by claim 8. Thus, the claim is unpatentable even though the optoelectronic device of Venkatasubramanian was made by a different process. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 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, 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatasubramanian (US 2011/0198570), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Swanson et al. (“Silicon Photovoltaic Cells in TPV Conversion”). Regarding claim 3 and 4, Venkatasubramanian discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Venkatasubramanian does not explicitly disclose that each of the one or more lateral p-n junctions includes a positive area of the silicon doped with boron and a negative area doped with phosphorus and wherein the silicon material has a thickness in range of 30 to 200 µm. Swanson discloses a TPV cell (abstract and Figure 2.1) comprising a silicon material with a p-n junction (abstract and Figure 2.1) wherein the p-n junction includes a positive area of the silicon doped with boron (Section 3.3e) and a negative area doped with phosphorus (Section 3.3e) and wherein the silicon material has a thickness in range of 30 to 200 µm (100µm silicon material thickness, Figure 2.1 and section 2.1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Venkatasubramanian such that each of the one or more lateral p-n junctions includes a positive area of the silicon doped with boron and a negative area doped with phosphorus and wherein the silicon material has a thickness in range of 30 to 200 µm, as taught by Swanson, since such a modification would amount to nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (“Near-perfect photon utilization in an air-bridge thermophotovoltaic cell”) in view of Jenkins (US 6,034,321). Regarding claim 9, Fan discloses an optoelectronic device in Figures 1 and 2h, comprising: a substrate (Si substrate, Figure 2h); a reflector (Au reflector layer) disposed on the substrate (Figure 2h and page 239); a spacer layer disposed on the reflector (Figures 1 and 2h, spacer layer is between the Au reflector layer and the TPV cell); and a thermophotovoltaic cell (TPV cell shown in Figures 1 and 2h), disposed on to the spacer layer, such that the spacer layer is arranged between the reflector (Au reflector layer) and the thermophotovoltaic cell (TPV cell) and the spacer layer includes a cavity which extends between the reflector and the thermophotovoltaic cell (spacer layer is between the Au reflector layer and the TPV cell and provided an airbridge cavity as shown in Figures 1 and 2h and disclosed in the abstract). Fan additionally discloses that the thermophotovoltaic cell (TPV cell) is comprised of silicon material with one or more p-n junctions formed therein (As shown in Figure 2h, the TPV cell has a lateral p-n junction and is composed of a layer of P+ InP doped with Be, n-InGaAs doped with Si, n+ InP doped with Si. The TPV cell includes a silicon material which reads on the claim limitation “comprised of silicon material”. It is noted that the limitation “comprised of” allows other materials to be used in the cell as long as silicon is also present). Fan does not disclose that the thermophotovoltaic cell is comprised of silicon material with a series of p-n junctions formed in a top surface of the silicon material, where each p-n junction includes a region of p-type semiconductor material disposed laterally adjacent to a region of n-type semiconductor material. Jenkins discloses a thermophotovoltaic cell (column 5 lines 1-15) comprised of silicon material (column 3 lines 34-50, active layer 38 can be silicon) with a series of p-n junctions formed in a top surface of the silicon material (dot junctions, column 3 lines 34-50 and Figures 3 and 4), where each p-n junction includes a region of p-type semiconductor material disposed laterally adjacent to a region of n-type semiconductor material (Figures 3 and 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the TPV cell of Fan with the TPV cell of Jenkins such that the thermophotovoltaic cell is comprised of silicon material with a series of p-n junctions formed in a top surface of the silicon material, where each p-n junction includes a region of p-type semiconductor material disposed laterally adjacent to a region of n-type semiconductor material, because it would result in the substitution of one known TPV cell for another to obtain predictable results. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSEY A BUCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm. 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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. /LINDSEY A BUCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 03, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Apr 01, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604663
DOUBLE-CAPPED MICROMOLECULE ELECTRON DONOR MATERIAL AND PREPARATION AND APPLICATION THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12575219
SOLAR CELL AND PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563858
THREE DIMENSIONAL CONCAVE HEMISPHERE SOLAR CELLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557550
THERMOELECTRIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12550614
Device for converting thermal energy into electric power
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
49%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+25.0%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 679 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month