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 without traverse of species A and C in the reply filed on 4/7/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0180854 to Bellanger.
Regarding claim 1, Bellanger teaches a tandem solar cell comprising
A first solar cell unit 11 having a first upper electrode 10 and a first lower electrode 12 that are disposed spaced apart from each other (Fig. 3B, ¶0173)
A second solar cell unit 15 provided under the first solar cell unit 11 and having a second upper electrode 13 and a second lower electrode 16 that are disposed apart from each other
A first output terminal 9 connected to the first upper electrode 10
A second output electrode 9 connected to the second lower electrode 16
A third output terminal 9 connected to both the first lower electrode 12 and the second upper electrode 13.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2017/0125621 to Jungwirth.
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 14, Jungwirth teaches a tandem solar cell comprising
A first solar cell unit 522 having a first upper electrode 730 and a first lower electrode 732 that are disposed spaced apart from each other (Fig. 5, ¶0040, 0041)
A second solar cell unit 524 provided under the first solar cell unit 522 and having a second upper electrode 734 and a second lower electrode 736 that are disposed apart from each other (¶0042)
A first output terminal 704 connected to the first upper electrode 730
A second output terminal 716 connected to the second lower electrode 736
A third output terminal 708 connected to the first lower electrode 732 and the second upper electrode 734.
Per claim 3, Jungwirth teaches the limitations of claim 1. In an embodiment, a first current controller 122 is provided between the poles of an analogous first solar cell 22 (Fig. 2, ¶0023-0025), a second current controller 124 provided between the poles of an analogous second solar cell 24, and a controller configured to control operations of the first current controller and the second current controller (distinct controllers 122, 124 are shown in the embodiment of Fig. 2; however, ¶0026, 0027, 0031 are clear that the control circuitry can be made into a single processor). A skilled artisan would understand that the opposite poles of the analogous first solar cell of the embodiment of Fig. 2 necessarily correspond to an electrical connection to the respective first and third output terminal, and the opposite poles of the analogous second solar cell necessarily correspond to an electrical connection to the respective third and second output terminal. MPEP §2131.02.III.
Per claim 14, Jungwirth teaches the limitations of claim 1. A bonding layer 552 is provided between the first lower electrode 732 and the second upper electrode 734 (¶0040-0042).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungwirth as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 6, Jungwirth teaches the limitations of claim 3. Jungwirth clearly teaches that the current between the through the analogous first and second solar cell units 22, 24, and therefore between the first and third output terminals and between the third and second output terminals, is measured and accommodated by the first current controller (¶0030). Therefore, although it is not explicitly recited, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a current sensor between the first output terminal and the second output terminal in order to provide information to the controller.
The controller (processor including the function of 132, 134) is configured to control operation of the first current controller 122 and the second current controller 124 according to an amount of current detected by the current sensor.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungwirth as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 2010/0084924 to Frolov.
Regarding claims 7-10, modified-Jungwirth teaches the limitations of claim 6. Jungwirth teaches that the first current controller 122 and second current controller 124 comprise a DC to DC power converter, and that the controller is capable of operating to dynamically change a current or voltage at or through the terminals, which would necessarily result in a change in the amount of current detected by the current sensor modified-Jungwirth (¶0024-0027). While Jungwirth does not explicitly teach that one of the first and second current controller include a switch element, Frolov teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to include a switch element in the first current controller and the second current controller, because switches capable of switching on and off as a function of time and in response to changes in current and voltage are typically included in DC to DC power converters (¶0051). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
The limitations that the controller is configured to switch the switch element in an off state to an on state when there is no change in the amount of current detected by the current sensor for a set time, and that the controller is configured to switch the switch element in the on state to the off state when the amount of current detected by the current sensor decreases after the switch element is switched to the one state are intended use limitations. Intended use limitations are given weight to the extent that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP § 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. A skilled artisan would understand that a controller of modified-Jungwirth is capable of controlling the respective first current controller and second current controller, which necessarily requires switching the switch element of those controllers into an on and off state. Further, the controller is capable of measuring the amount of current detected by the current sensor as a function of time. Therefore the controller of modified-Jungwirth is capable of operating the current controllers in the claimed way.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0234038 to Kurokami (of record).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 14, Kurokami teaches a tandem solar cell comprising
A first solar cell unit 11 having a first upper electrode and an electrode 13 that are disposed apart from each other (Figs. 1, 2, ¶0145-0147)
A second solar cell unit 12 provided under the first solar cell unit 11 and having the electrode 13 and a second lower electrode 15 that are disposed spaced apart from each other
A first output terminal connected to the first upper electrode 14 (¶0106-0108)
A second output terminal connected to the second lower electrode 15
A third output terminal 7 connected to the electrode 13.
In the embodiment of Fig. 1, the electrode 13 functions as both a first lower electrode of the first solar cell unit and a second upper electrode of the second solar cell unit. Kurokami elsewhere teaches that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the first solar cell unit to have a distinct first lower electrode (124 of Fig. 12) and to form the second solar cell unit to have a distinct second upper electrode (125) so that the electrical output of the first and second solar cell can be used separately (¶0011-0014, 0063).
Per claim 2, modified-Kurokami teaches the limitations of claim 1. The embodiment of Fig. 1 illustrates an element 31 connected between the first output terminal and the third output terminal, an element 32 connected between the second output terminal and the third output terminal, and an element 41 connected between the first output terminal and the second output terminal (¶0147, 0148). Elements 31 and 32 each comprise a capacitor 33 (Fig. 4) that is connected across the respective terminal (¶0156, 0157); these capacitors read on the claimed second and third loads. In a configuration in which the switching means 34, also comprised within elements 31 and 32, is configured so that the current from the first output terminal passes through the elements 31 and 32, the first and second terminals are connected to element 41, which comprises a capacitor 33 which reads on a first load (¶0158-0164).
Per claim 3, modified-Kurokami teaches the limitations of claim 1. A first current controller 31 is provided between the first output terminal and the third output terminal 7 (¶0063, 0068, 0121, 0148), a second current controller 32 is provided between the second output terminal and the third output terminal 7, and a controller 41 is configured to control operations of the first current controller and the second controller.
Per claim 14, modified-Kurokami teaches the limitations of claim 1. To achieve the spaced apart first lower electrode and second upper electrode, a layer (127) is provided between them (¶011, 0013, 0021). While Kurokami does not explicitly address the bonding properties of the layer (127), it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the layer as a bonding layer to firmly fix the cells together (¶0138).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. US 2020/0144238 is the closest prior art, teaching a similar electrical and structural configuration to that of claim 3 (embodiment of Fig. 5). However, while that reference does teach a light amount sensor (52, 53) capable of detecting light incident on an analogous first solar cell unit (12), the reference does not teach or suggest a second light amount sensor, or configuring a controller to receive information from two sensors and control analogous first and second current controllers (31, 32) based on that information.
Claim 15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. There is no teaching or motivation to substitute the capacitors in modified-Kurokami with secondary batteries. US 2012/0240988 (see Figs. 8, 9 and relevant text), 20120167964 (Fig. 1 and relevant text), and 2013/0025643 (Fig. 2B and relevant text) teach a tandem solar cell with first, second, and third output terminals and second and third loads connected between respective terminals, but do not teach a first load connected between the first output terminal and the second output terminal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2012/0044014.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights