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 II, claims 9-12 drawn to a solar cell, in the reply filed on 4/22/2026 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Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, a method of manufacturing a CdTe based thin film solar cell device, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/22/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Roscheisen et al. (US 2005/0098204) as evidenced by Yukinobu et al. (US 2013/0101867).
Regarding claim 9, Roscheisen et al. discloses CdTe based thin film solar cell device with a graded refractive index profile at least comprising:
a transparent substrate comprising a transparent electrode (110, figs. 1A and 1C, [0069] which describe the electrode 110 is made from a transparent conducting material disposed on glass substrate),
a contact (106, figs. 1A and 1C) and
an absorber layer (105/107) between the electrode (110) and the contact (106) comprising a layer of n-type (105, figs. 1A and 1C) comprising CdSe, vanadium oxide as well as blends or alloys of two or more such materials ([0070]), and a layer of p-type (107, [0076]) comprising CdTe (see [0083]).
Roscheisen et al. discloses using two or more materials such as CdSe and vanadium oxide for the n-type layer (105) and CdTe for the p-type layer (107) among many other materials. Roscheisen et al. does not teach using a combination of CdSe and vanadium oxide for the n-type layer (105) and CdTe for the p-type layer (107) exclusively.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used two or more materials such as CdSe and vanadium oxide for the n-type layer (105) and CdTe for the p-type layer (107), because Roscheinsen et al. explicitly suggests doing so.
In such modification, the absorber of Roscheisen et al. is a doped CdTe-based absorber comprising vanadium as a first doping element as claimed.
Roscheisen et al. does not explicitly disclose the electrode (110) to be the front electrode and the contact (106) to be the back contact.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged or flipped the solar cell of Roscheisen et al. by having the transparent substrate comprising transparent electrode (110) to be the front electrode and the contact (106) to be the rear contact, because such modification would involve nothing more than a mere rearrangement of part. Since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
As such the doped CdTe absorber layer will comprise the characteristic/property of a graded refractive index along a thickness of the CdTe based absorber layer with a lowest refractive index at a first interface of the CdTe based absorber layer oriented towards the substrate (110, or the side of n-type layer 105 comprising CdSe and vanadium oxide) and a highest refractive index second interface of the CdTe based absorber layer oriented towards the back contact (106, or the side of p-type layer of CdTe), because CdSe and vanadium oxide have lower refractive index than CdTe particularly in view of Applicant’s disclosure. CdSe has a refractive index of 2.54, CdTe has a refractive index of 2.95 (see [0003] of Applicant’s disclosure), and vanadium oxide has a refractive index of 2.2 to 2.5 (see [0335] of evidentiary reference to Yukinobu et al., US 2013/0101867).
Regarding claim 10, Roscheisen et al. discloses a CdTe based thin film solar cell device as in claim 9 above, wherein the doped CdTe based absorber layer comprises a gradient of the first doping element (vanadium oxide) along the thickness of the CdTe based absorber layer with a highest concentration of the first doping element at the first interface of the CdTe based absorber layer (or at the n-type layer 105 comprising CdSe and vanadium oxide, see claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roscheisen et al. (US 2005/0098204) in view of Powell et al. (US 2009/019166).
Regarding claims 11-12, Roscheisen et al. discloses a CdTe based thin film solar cell device as in claim 9 above.
Roscheisen et al. does not teach the doped CdTe based absorber layer comprises a second doping element having a gradient along the thickness of the CdTe based absorber layer with a highest concentration of the second doping element at the second interface of the CdTe based absorber layer as claimed in claim 11, wherein the second doping element is a group 11 or group 15 element as claimed in claim 12.
Powell teaches doping CdTe with P, As, Sb or Cu to effectively form p-type and to improve electrical signal (see [0036] and [0042]). Pb, As and Sb are elements of group 15 and Cu is an element of group 11.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the solar cell of Roscheisen et al. by doping the CdTe layer with P, As, Sb or Cu to effectively form p-type and to improve electrical signal as taught by Power. In such modification, the dope-CdTe based absorber (105/107) of modified Roscheisen et al. comprising a second doping element (e.g. P, As, Sb or Cu) along the thickness of the CdTe based absorber layer (105/107) with a highest concentration of the second doping element at the second interface of the CdTe based absorber layer (or the p-type layer 107 having CdTe being doped with P, As, Sb or Cu).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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 T. Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights