DETAILED ACTION
This is the first 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.
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 2002/0160539 A1: This reference teaches a method of making a CIGS solar cell device comprising an oxygen annealing step (Figs. 5 and 7).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0283913 A1: This reference teaches that annealing a CIGS film in an oxygen environment reduces unwanted carbon in the film (paragraph [0010]).
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 17-20 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 17 recites “a substrate of an image sensor” in line 2 and “the image sensor” in line 16. The recitation of “the image sensor” in line 16 lacks proper antecedent basis, because, although line 2 recites “a substrate of an image sensor,” this recitation does not positively recite an image sensor. Further, it is unclear whether the recited device layers of Claim 17 are intended to correspond to the “image sensor” of Claim 17.
Claims 18-20 are indefinite, because of their dependence on Claim 17.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin, et al. (Current Applied Physics 15 (2015) 18-24).
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).
Because the absorber layer comprises a CIGS layer annealed in air, this disclosure teaches that the absorber layer comprises oxygen-annealed copper, indium, gallium and selenium, because oxygen is a component of air.
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).
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.).
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).
Because the absorber layer comprises a CIGS layer annealed in air, this disclosure teaches that the absorber layer comprises oxygen-annealed copper, indium, gallium and selenium.
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 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.).
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.
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 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 Staley, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0226323 A1).
In reference to Claims 5 and 12, 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). This substrate corresponds to the “substrate of an image sensor” recited in Claim 17, because it is a substrate, and the device of Shim is structurally capable of functioning as an “image sensor.”
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).
Because the absorber layer comprises a CIGS layer annealed in air, this disclosure teaches that the absorber layer comprises oxygen-annealed copper, indium, gallium and selenium.
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).
Conclusion
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