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.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 line 5 contains the limitation “the discontinuous first layer” which should be changed to “the discontinuous layer”. 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.
Claims 3 and 14-19 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.
Claims 3 and 14 contain the limitation “wherein the discontinuous layer includes partial or whole amorphous Magnesium, Oxygen, MnOx or combination thereof” which is unclear. It is unclear what “partial or whole amorphous” requires. Are the claims requiring at least part of the discontinuous layer be amorphous? Or an amorphous magnesium, amorphous oxygen or amorphous MnOx be in the discontinuous layer? Since it is unclear what structure is required by the claims, for the purpose of this Office Action, claims 3 and 14 will not be further treated on the merits.
Claims 14-19 contain the preamble “The photovoltaic n-p junction” however, claim 13, from which claims 14-19 depend has the preamble “A photovoltaic cell”. The preambles of claims 14-19 do not have the same scope as claim 13, from which they depend and are therefore indefinite. For the purpose of this Office Action, the preambles of claims 14-19 will be treated as if they read “The photovoltaic cell”.
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, 4-5, 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korevaar et al. (US 2012/0260978).
Regarding claim 1, Korevaar discloses a photovoltaic device in Figure 3 comprising:
a substrate (110) ([38]);
a transparent conductive oxide layer (132) residing over the substrate ([38]-[39]);
a n-p junction residing over the substrate ([57] and [61]), the n-p junction including:
a n-type or a p-type buffer layer (patterned first semiconductor layer 150) including:
a discontinuous layer (150) including Magnesium, Oxygen, MnOx or combination thereof ([57], layer 150 can be oxygenated cadmium sulfide, copper oxide or zinc oxihydrate, which all include oxygen); and
a void (section filled by layer 140) formed through the discontinuous layer (150) occupied by a material other than MnOx (section 140 can be silicon oxide, titanium oxide and/or silicon nitride, [42]);
a p-type or a n-type absorber layer (absorber can include layers 160 and 180) doped with a group V dopant ([60]-[61] and [67]), and
the p- type absorber layer (layers 160 and 180) residing over the buffer layer (150) (Figure 3); and
a back contact (190) residing over the absorber layer ([68]).
Regarding claim 4, Korevaar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Korevaar additionally discloses that the buffer layer has an interface layer (140) ([42]).
Regarding claim 5, Korevaar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Korevaar additionally discloses that the interface layer (140) includes
PNG
media_image1.png
16
86
media_image1.png
Greyscale
MnOx, SiNX or SiO2 ([42], layer 140 can be silicon nitride or silicon oxide).
Regarding claim 10, Korevaar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Korevaar additionally discloses that the absorber layer (absorber layer includes layer 180) includes a thickness range of about 1 nm to about 200 nm ([65], thickness of 50nm-200nm).
Regarding claim 12, Korevaar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Korevaar additionally discloses a barrier layer residing between the substrate (110) and the transparent conductive oxide layer (132) (barrier layer can be present, [37]); and a conducting layer residing over the back contact ([68], an additional metal layer can be present).
Regarding claim 13, Korevaar discloses a photovoltaic device in Figure 3 comprising:
a n-p junction ([57] and [61]), including:
a n-type buffer layer (patterned first semiconductor layer 150) including:
a discontinuous layer (150) including Magnesium, Oxygen, MnOx or combination thereof ([57], layer 150 can be oxygenated cadmium sulfide, copper oxide or zinc oxihydrate, which all include oxygen); and
a void (section filled by layer 140) formed through the discontinuous layer (150) occupied by a material other than MnOx (section 140 can be silicon oxide, titanium oxide and/or silicon nitride, [42]);
a p-type absorber layer (absorber can include layers 160 and 180) doped with a group V dopant ([60]-[61] and [67]).
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 9, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korevaar et al. (US 2012/0260978).
Regarding claim 9, Korevaar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Korevaar additionally discloses that the absorber layer (absorber layer includes layers 160 and 180) includes a charge carrier concentration range of about 1017 to about 1020 ([64]), but does not disclose the specifically claimed range of a charge carrier concentration range of about 3 x 1017 to about 2 x 1019. However, In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie
case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 18, Korevaar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Korevaar additionally discloses that the absorber layer (180) includes a charge carrier concentration range of about 1017 to about 1020 ([64]), but does not disclose the specifically claimed range of a charge carrier concentration range of about 3 x 1017 to about 2 x 1019. However, In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Korevaar additionally discloses that a thickness of the absorber layer (180) is in a thickness range of about 1 nm to about 200 nm ([65], see 50-200nm).
Regarding claim 20, Korevaar discloses a photovoltaic module in Figure 3 having one or more cells (100, [33]) comprising:
a n-type buffer layer (patterned first semiconductor layer 150) including:
a discontinuous layer (150) including Magnesium, Oxygen, MnOx or combination thereof ([57], layer 150 can be oxygenated cadmium sulfide, copper oxide or zinc oxihydrate, which all include oxygen); and
a void (section filled by layer 140) formed through the discontinuous layer (150) occupied by a material other than MnOx (section 140 can be silicon oxide, titanium oxide and/or silicon nitride, [42]);
a p-type absorber layer (180) doped with a group V dopant ([67]).
Korevaar additionally discloses that the absorber layer (180) includes a charge carrier concentration range of about 1017 to about 1020 ([64]), but does not disclose the specifically claimed range of a charge carrier concentration range of about 3 x 1017 to about 2 x 1019. However, In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Korevaar additionally discloses that a thickness of the absorber layer (180) is in a thickness range of about 1 nm to about 200 nm ([65], see 50-200nm).
Claims 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korevaar et al. (US 2012/0260978), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, in view of Buller et al. (US 2011/0146785).
Regarding claims 2 and 19, Korevaar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Korevaar does not disclose that the discontinuous buffer layer includes a group V dopant.
Buller discloses a photovoltaic device in Figure 2 including a metal oxide buffer layer (223) including a group V dopant ([12] and [33]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a group V dopant to the buffer layer of Korevaar, as taught by Buller, in order to increase the conductivity of the buffer layer and improve the efficiency of the device (Buller, [11]-[12] and [33]).
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korevaar et al. (US 2012/0260978), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, in view of Korevaar et al. (US 2014/0170801, referred to as Korevaar ‘801).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 15-16, Korevaar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Korevaar additionally discloses that the buffer layer comprises a base layer (134) including SnO, SnO2 or SnOX ([40]) and an interface layer (140) residing over the base layer (134), wherein the interface layer (134) includes Zn1-XMgXO, MnOX, SiNX or SiO2 ([42]), but Korevaar does not disclose an intermediate layer residing over the interface layer, wherein the intermediate layer includes Zn1-XMgXO.
Korevaar ‘801 discloses a photovoltaic device in Figure 2 comprising a buffer layer (130) comprising a plurality of layers including a layer of Zn1-XMgXO ([45]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add an intermediate layer including Zn1-XMgXO over the interface layer of Korevaar, as taught by Korevaar ‘801, because it would amount to nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korevaar et al. (US 2012/0260978), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, in view of Walukiewicz et al. (US 2013/0074912).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Korevaar discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Korevaar does not disclose that a bandgap of the discontinuous buffer layer substantially matches the bandgap of an adjacent semiconductor material.
Walukiewicz discloses a photovoltaic device in Figure 1 wherein a bandgap of a buffer layer (n-type CdS layer) substantially matches the bandgap of an adjacent absorber layer (p-type CdTe alloy layer) ([22]-[26]).
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 Korevaar such that a bandgap of the discontinuous buffer layer substantially matches the bandgap of an adjacent semiconductor material, as taught by Walukiewicz, because a bandgap match improves the efficiency of the device (Walukiewicz, [22]-[26]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,416 in view of Korevaar et al. (US 2012/0260978).
Claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,416 include the limitations of instant claims 1-2, 4-13 and 15-20 including a photovoltaic device comprising: a substrate; a transparent conductive oxide layer residing over the substrate; a buffer layer including: a discontinuous layer including MnOx; and a void formed through the discontinuous layer occupied by a material other than MnOx; an absorber layer doped with a group V dopant, and residing over the buffer layer; and a back contact residing over the absorber layer.
Claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,416 do not include the limitations an n-p junction including: a n-type buffer layer and a p-type absorber layer doped with a group V dopant, the p-type absorber layer including: a charge carrier concentration range of about 3 x 1017 to about 2 x 1019; and a thickness range of about 1 nm to about 200 nm.
Korevaar discloses a photovoltaic device in Figure 3 comprising:
a substrate (110) ([38]);
a transparent conductive oxide layer (132) residing over the substrate ([38]-[39]);
a n-p junction residing over the substrate ([57] and [61]), the n-p junction including:
a n-type or a p-type buffer layer (patterned first semiconductor layer 150) including:
a discontinuous layer (150) including Magnesium, Oxygen, MnOx or combination thereof ([57], layer 150 can be oxygenated cadmium sulfide, copper oxide or zinc oxihydrate, which all include oxygen); and
a void (section filled by layer 140) formed through the discontinuous layer (150) occupied by a material other than MnOx (section 140 can be silicon oxide, titanium oxide and/or silicon nitride, [42]);
a p-type or a n-type absorber layer (absorber can include layers 160 and 180) doped with a group V dopant ([60]-[61] and [67]), and
the p- type absorber layer (layers 160 and 180) residing over the buffer layer (150) (Figure 3); and
a back contact (190) residing over the absorber layer ([68]).
Korevaar additionally discloses that a thickness of the absorber layer (180) is in a thickness range of about 1 nm to about 200 nm ([65], see 50-200nm).
Korevaar additionally discloses that the absorber layer (180) includes a charge carrier concentration range of about 1017 to about 1020 ([64]), but does not disclose the specifically claimed range of a charge carrier concentration range of about 3 x 1017 to about 2 x 1019. However, In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,416 to include the limitations an n-p junction including: a n-type buffer layer and a p-type absorber layer doped with a group V dopant, the p-type absorber layer including: a charge carrier concentration range of about 3 x 1017 to about 2 x 1019; and a thickness range of about 1 nm to about 200 nm, as taught by Korevaar, because it would amount to nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejection as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of Korevaar, Buller and Walukiewicz, alone or in combination, does not disclose, suggest or render obvious the limitation that the discontinuous layer is MnOX with a dosage of Mn that is at least 0.05 µg/cm2 in combination with the other claim limitations.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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 1728