DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action on the merits for 18/968,275, filed 12/4/2024, which is a divisional application of 18/133,602, filed 4/12/2023, which is a continuation of 16/702,107, filed 12/3/2019.
Claims 1-20 are pending, and are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments filed 7/24/2026, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn, the prior art rejections are withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection, but are deemed relevant.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0226629 A1: This reference teaches that CIGS layers should be processed to exclude air and moisture (paragraphs [0110] and [0156]).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0196399 A1: This reference teaches the deposition of a Cu-In-Ga-N layer as a protective layer on CIGS, to protect it from oxygen and moisture (paragraph [0016]).
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 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 1-4, 6-11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin, et al. (Current Applied Physics 15 (2015) 18-24), in view of Yamada, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0160539 A1).
In reference to Claim 1, Shin teaches a device, corresponding to the solar cell with a CIGS absorber layer annealed in air, described in section 2, page 19.
The device of Shin comprises a substrate, corresponding to the soda-lime glass substrate (section 2, paragraph 1, page 19).
The device of Shin comprises a bottom contact layer on the substrate, corresponding to the Mo layer on the soda-lime glass substrate (section 2, paragraph 1, page 19).
The device of Shin comprises an absorber layer on the bottom contact layer, corresponding to the CIGS layer annealed in air (section 2, paragraph 1, page 19).
The device of Shin comprises a cap layer on the absorber layer, corresponding to the CdS layer on the CIGS layer (section 2, paragraph 2, page 19).
The device of Shin comprises a hole blocker layer on the cap layer, corresponding to the intrinsic ZnO layer deposited on the CdS layer (section 2, paragraph 2, page 19).
The device of Shin comprises a top contact layer on the hole blocker layer, corresponding to the Al-doped ZnO layer deposited on the intrinsic ZnO layer (section 2, paragraph 2, page 19).
Although Shin’s disclosure teaches that the absorber layer comprises oxygen-annealed copper, indium, gallium, and selenium, Shin does not teach that the absorber layer is formed without exposing the absorber layer to air or moisture.
To solve the same problem of providing an oxygen-treated CIGS absorber for a solar cell, Yamada teaches that annealing a CIGS solar cell absorber layer in an oxygen environment comprising oxygen and argon (paragraph [0040]) provides the benefit of forming a buffer layer comprising indium oxide and/or gallium oxide on the top surface of the CIGS layer (paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have replaced the air treatment step of Shin with the oxygen/argon treatment of Yamada, because Yamada discloses a suitable and conventional method for introducing an oxygen species to the surface of a CIGS layer for a solar cell, which is the function of the air treatment step in the method of Shin.
Replacing the air treatment step of Shin with the oxygen/argon treatment of Yamada teaches the limitations of Claim 1, wherein the absorber layer is formed without exposing the absorber layer to air.
It is the Examiner’s position that, because the method of Shin does not teach that moisture or water vapor is present in the processing of the CIGS layer, and because the oxygen treatment of process of Yamada/modified Shin also does not comprise the introduction of water vapor or moisture, the absorber layer is formed without exposing the absorber layer to moisture.
The device of Shin has a quantum efficiency greater than about 50%, measured at a wavelength of about 940 nanometers (Fig. 10).
He does not teach that this measurement is performed at a voltage of about -1 volt.
However, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the device of Shin has the quantum efficiency properties required by Claim 1, because it teaches all of the structural features recited in Claim 1.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim 1 recites product-by-process limitations.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
In reference to Claim 2, Fig. 10 teaches that the quantum efficiency is greater than about 85%.
In reference to Claim 3, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the device of Shin has the properties required by Claim 3, because it teaches all of the structural features recited in Claim 3.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
In reference to Claim 4, Shin teaches that the bottom contact layer comprises molybdenum (section 2, paragraph 1, page 19).
In reference to Claim 6, Shin teaches that the top contact layer comprises a conductive oxide (i.e. Al-doped ZnO, section 2, paragraph 2, page 19).
In reference to Claim 7, Shin teaches that the top contact layer comprises aluminum-doped zinc oxide.
In reference to Claim 8, Shin teaches that the cap layer is cadmium sulfide (section 2, paragraph 2, page 19).
In reference to Claim 9, Shin teaches a device, corresponding to the solar cell with a CIGS absorber layer annealed in air, described in section 2, page 19. It is the Examiner’s position that this device is structurally capable of functioning as an “image sensor,” because it is a photovoltaic device that meets the structural limitations of Claim 9.
The device of Shin comprises an absorber layer, corresponding to the CIGS layer annealed in air (section 2, paragraph 1, page 19).
The device of Shin comprises a cap layer on the absorber layer, corresponding to the CdS layer on the CIGS layer (section 2, paragraph 2, page 19).
The device of Shin comprises a hole blocker layer on the cap layer, corresponding to the intrinsic ZnO layer deposited on the CdS layer (section 2, paragraph 2, page 19).
Although Shin’s disclosure teaches that the absorber layer comprises oxygen-annealed copper, indium, gallium, and selenium, Shin does not teach that the absorber layer is formed without exposing the absorber layer to air or moisture.
To solve the same problem of providing an oxygen-treated CIGS absorber, Yamada teaches that annealing a CIGS solar cell absorber layer in an oxygen environment comprising oxygen and argon (paragraph [0040]) provides the benefit of forming a buffer layer comprising indium oxide and/or gallium oxide on the top surface of the CIGS layer (paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have replaced the air treatment step of Shin with the oxygen/argon treatment of Yamada, because Yamada discloses a suitable and conventional method for introducing an oxygen species to the surface of a CIGS layer, which is the function of the air treatment step in the method of Shin.
Replacing the air treatment step of Shin with the oxygen/argon treatment of Yamada teaches the limitations of Claim 9, wherein the absorber layer is formed without exposing the absorber layer to air.
It is the Examiner’s position that, because the method of Shin does not teach that moisture or water vapor is present in the processing of the CIGS layer, and because the oxygen treatment of process of Yamada/modified Shin also does not comprise the introduction of water vapor or moisture, the absorber layer is formed without exposing the absorber layer to moisture.
The device of Shin has a quantum efficiency greater than about 50%, measured at a wavelength of about 940 nanometers (Fig. 10).
He does not teach that this measurement is performed at a voltage of about -1 volt.
However, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the device of Shin has the quantum efficiency properties required by Claim 9, because it teaches all of the structural features recited in Claim 9.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim 9 recites product-by-process limitations.
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself.
In reference to Claim 10, Fig. 10 teaches that the quantum efficiency is greater than about 85%.
In reference to Claim 11, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the device of Shin has the properties required by Claim 11, because it teaches all of the structural features recited in Claim 11.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
In reference to Claim 13, Shin teaches that the cap layer is cadmium sulfide (section 2, paragraph 2, page 19).
In reference to Claim 14, Shin teaches that the device further comprises a substrate, corresponding to the soda-lime glass substrate (section 2, paragraph 1, page 19).
The device of Shin comprises a bottom contact layer between the absorber layer and the substrate, corresponding to the Mo layer on the soda-lime glass substrate (section 2, paragraph 1, page 19).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 14, wherein the bottom contact layer comprises molybdenum.
In reference to Claim 15, Shin teaches that the device further comprises a top contact layer on the hole blocker layer, corresponding to the Al-doped ZnO layer deposited on the intrinsic ZnO layer (section 2, paragraph 2, page 19).
This disclosure further teaches the limitations of Claim 16, wherein the top contact layer comprises aluminum-doped zinc oxide.
Claims 5, 12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin, et al. (Current Applied Physics 15 (2015) 18-24), in view of Yamada, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0160539 A1), and further in view of Staley, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0226323 A1).
In reference to Claims 5 and 12, modified Shin does not teach that the hole blocker layer comprises gallium oxide. Instead, he teaches that this layer is undoped ZnO (Shin, section 2, paragraph 1, page 19).
To solve the same problem of providing a conductive oxide layer for a CIGS solar cell, Staley teaches that both ZnO and Ga2O3 are conductive oxide layers suitable for use as conductive oxide layers in such a device (paragraph [0023]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the ZnO hole blocker layer of the device of Shin from Ga2O3, based on the disclosure of Staley.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
In reference to Claim 17-20, Shin teaches a device, corresponding to the solar cell with a CIGS absorber layer annealed in air, described in section 2, page 19.
The device of Shin comprises a substrate, corresponding to the soda-lime glass substrate (section 2, paragraph 1, page 19).
The device of Shin comprises a bottom contact layer on the substrate, corresponding to the Mo layer on the soda-lime glass substrate (section 2, paragraph 1, page 19).
The device of Shin comprises an absorber layer on the bottom contact layer, corresponding to the CIGS layer annealed in air (section 2, paragraph 1, page 19).
Although Shin’s disclosure teaches that the absorber layer comprises oxygen-annealed copper, indium, gallium, and selenium, Shin does not teach that the absorber layer is formed without exposing the absorber layer to air or moisture.
To solve the same problem of providing an oxygen-treated CIGS absorber, Yamada teaches that annealing a CIGS absorber layer in an oxygen environment comprising oxygen and argon (paragraph [0040]) provides the benefit of forming a buffer layer comprising indium oxide and/or gallium oxide on the top surface of the CIGS layer (paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have replaced the air treatment step of Shin with the oxygen/argon treatment of Yamada, because Yamada discloses a suitable and conventional method for introducing an oxygen species to the surface of a CIGS layer, which is the function of the air treatment step in the method of Shin.
Replacing the air treatment step of Shin with the oxygen/argon treatment of Yamada teaches the limitations of Claim 17, wherein the absorber layer is formed without exposing the absorber layer to air.
It is the Examiner’s position that, because the method of Shin does not teach that moisture or water vapor is present in the processing of the CIGS layer, and because the oxygen treatment of process of Yamada/modified Shin also does not comprise the introduction of water vapor or moisture, the absorber layer is formed without exposing the absorber layer to moisture.
The device of Shin comprises a cap layer on the absorber layer, corresponding to the CdS layer on the CIGS layer (section 2, paragraph 2, page 19).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 17, wherein the cap layer comprises cadmium sulfide.
The device of Shin comprises a hole blocker layer on the cap layer, corresponding to the intrinsic ZnO layer deposited on the CdS layer (section 2, paragraph 2, page 19).
Shin does not teach that the hole blocker layer comprises gallium oxide. Instead, he teaches that this layer is undoped ZnO (Shin, section 2, paragraph 1, page 19).
To solve the same problem of providing a conductive oxide layer for a CIGS solar cell, Staley teaches that both ZnO and Ga2O3 are conductive oxide layers suitable for use as conductive oxide layers in such a device (paragraph [0023]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the ZnO hole blocker layer of the device of Shin from Ga2O3, based on the disclosure of Staley.
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
The device of Shin comprises a top contact layer on the hole blocker layer, corresponding to the Al-doped ZnO layer deposited on the intrinsic ZnO layer (section 2, paragraph 2, page 19).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 17, wherein the top contact layer comprises aluminum-doped zinc oxide.
The device of Shin has a quantum efficiency greater than about 50%, measured at a wavelength of about 940 nanometers (Fig. 10).
He does not teach that this measurement is performed at a voltage of about -1 volt.
However, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the device of Shin has the quantum efficiency properties required by Claim 1, because it teaches all of the structural features recited in Claim 17.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
In reference to Claim 18, Fig. 10 teaches that the quantum efficiency is greater than about 85%.
In reference to Claim 19, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the device of Shin has the properties required by Claim 19, because it teaches all of the structural features recited in Claim 3.
Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
In reference to Claim 20, Shin teaches that the bottom contact layer comprises molybdenum (section 2, paragraph 1, page 19).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections presented in the non-final office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights