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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 is missing the article “A” at the beginning of the preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 4 and 6 are missing the article “The” at the beginning of the preamble for each claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8 is missing the article “A” at the beginning of the preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 9 and 10 are missing the article “The” at the beginning of the preamble for each claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 in line 20 recites “embedding means” and this claim limitation is treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). It is noted that the as-filed specification describes the embedding agent is, for example, an electrically insulating polymer, or advantageously, and electrically insulating thermoplastic on lines 1 and 2 of page 5. Additionally, the as-filed specification describes in lines 6 and 7 of page 6 that the embedding agent comprises EVA or POE.
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 1-11 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. Specifically, line 4 of claim 1 recites “the incident light,” however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-11 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 1.
Claim 2 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 2 recites the limitation "the embedding agent" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 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. Specifically, the phrase "such as" renders claim 3 indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 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 4 recites the limitation "the at least one tandem solar cell" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 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 5 recites the limitation "the at least one tandem solar cell" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8-11 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 8 recites the limitation "the first and second tandem solar cell” in line 2; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9-11 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 8.
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.
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
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellanger et al. (US 2012/0180854) in view of Yang et al. (US 4,379,943) and further in view of Vermeersch et al. (US 2012/0097215).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Bellanger discloses a 3T tandem solar cell
([0039],[0158]) comprising: a first solar cell (11 in Fig. 3B) comprising a first absorber layer [0167]) arranged between a first electrode on a side of the first solar cell facing incident light (10 in Fig. 3B) and a back contact on a side of the first solar cell facing away from the incident light (12 in Fig. 3B), a second solar cell (15 in Fig. 3B) comprising at least a second absorber layer ([0167]) arranged between a second electrode on a side of the second solar cell facing away from the incident light (16 in Fig. 3B) and a front contact on a side of the second solar cell facing the incident light (13 in Figures 3A and 3B; [0173]); a connecting layer arranged between the first and the second solar cell (14 in Figures 3A and 3B), the connecting layer forming an electrically conductive connection between the first and the second solar cell ([0039],[0158]); characterized in that the connecting layer comprises at least one electrically conductive, one-piece conductive element ([0181],[0198]) maintaining contact points to the back contact of the first solar cell and the front contact of the second solar cell, respectively ([0181],[0182]; it is noted that the limitations “contact points” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components), and the at least one one-piece conductive element is connected to or forms a third electrode (9 in Fig. 3B; [0173] discloses third output terminal 9; it is noted that the limitation “connected to” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components).
While Ballenger does disclose the back contact of the first solar cell and the front contact of the second solar cell are grid electrodes ([0173],[0195]), and while Bellanger does disclose examples of typical contact materials are: metals such as gold, zinc, nickel, aluminum, silver, molybdenum, tungsten, platinum, palladium; semi-metals and semiconductors such as germanium, transparent conducting oxides such as indium tin oxide, aluminum zinc oxide ([0182]), and further discloses the interlayer 19 includes ITO ([0176]), and additionally discloses at least the transparent component of the interlayer 19 optionally includes antireflection coatings at either interface of the transparent component ([0176]); Bellanger does not explicitly disclose the back contact is a first transparent conductive layer on a side of the first solar cell facing away from the incident light, and the front contact is a second transparent conductive layer on a side of the second solar cell facing the incident light.
Yang discloses a tandem solar cell (C6/L19) and further discloses a grid electrode deposited on the surface of a TCO layer (C10/L16-17). Yang further discloses the grid electrode uniformly collects current from the TCO layer to assure a good low series resistance for the device (C10/L23-25). Additionally, Yang discloses an anti-reflection layer is applied over the grid electrode and the areas of the TCO layer between the grid electrode areas (C10/L26-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the back contact of the first solar cell and the front contact of the second solar cell of Bellanger with a transparent conductive layer, as disclosed by Yang, because as taught by Yang, the grid electrode uniformly collects current from the TCO layer to assure a good low series resistance for the device (C10/L23-25).
Modified Bellanger discloses the at least one electrically conductive, one-piece conductive element (Bellanger - [0181],[0182],[0198]) maintaining contact points to the first and second transparent conductive layers, respectively (Bellanger – [0181],[0182]; Yang - C10/L16-17; the disclosed regions of modified Bellanger which bond the sub-cells necessarily maintain contact points to the respective transparent conductive layers (Yang – C10/L16-17); it is noted that the limitation “contact points” does not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components).
While modified Bellanger does disclose the gap between the component materials can be filled by solid media (Bellanger - [0198]), modified Bellanger does not explicitly disclose the at least one one-piece conductive element is embedded in EVA or POE.
Vermeersch discloses a tandem solar cell ([0001]) and further discloses the use of EVA for an interlayer ([0159]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use EVA, as disclosed by Vermeersch, as the solid media in modified Bellanger, because as taught by Vermeersch, mechanical protection, water vapor protection, shock absorbance, and an adhesive property are provided ([0152]).
With regard to the limitation “3T tandem solar cell,” statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 3, modified Bellanger discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Bellanger further discloses the first absorber layer comprises a first thin film material layer (Bellanger – [0041],[0079], claim 20).
Regarding claim 4, modified Bellanger discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Bellanger further discloses the at least one one-piece conductive element (Bellanger – [0081],[0082],[0198]) contacts the first and second transparent conductive layer each at several contact points (Bellanger – [0181],[0182]; Yang - C10/L16-17; the disclosed regions of the interlayer of modified Bellanger which bond the sub-cells necessarily contact each transparent conductive layer (Yang – C10/L16-17 at several contact points; it is noted that the limitations “contacts” and “contact points” do not require direct physical contact or the absence of intermediate components).
With regard to the limitation “wherein an electric current of charge carriers in the at least one one-piece conductive element can flow to the third electrode, in particular without returning to the first or second transparent conductive layer of the at least one tandem solar cell,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used, and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 5, modified Bellanger discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Bellanger further discloses the at least one-piece conductive element (Bellanger – [0181]) extends in a plane of the connecting layer that extends substantially parallel to a surface of the at least one tandem solar cell facing the incident light (Bellanger – interlayer depicted in Figures 3B and 4, respectively; [0174] – [0182]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Bellanger discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Bellanger discloses in regions within the first solar cell in which the first absorber layer is connected neither to the first conductive layer nor to the first electrode, a first electrically insulating layer is arranged at the first absorber layer so that in these regions the first absorber layer is electrically insulated from the connecting layer (Bellanger – [0176] discloses interlayer 19 includes segregated regions including electrically insulating materials which satisfy the limitation requiring “a first electrically insulating layer arranged at the first absorber layer).
Regarding claim 7, modified Bellanger discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Bellanger further discloses the first insulating layer is arranged such that the first electrode is electrically insulated from the at least one one-piece conductive element (Bellanger – the segregated regions including the electrically insulating material of [0176] between the regions of conducting material of [0181] satisfy the limitation “the first insulating layer is arranged such that the first electrode is electrically insulated from the at least one one-piece conductive element”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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, 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726