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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-22 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12-14 and 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013/0160844 A1, Hörtheis et al. (hereinafter “Hörtheis”).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 13
Hörtheis et al. teaches a paste for use in metallization of a solar cell (corresponding to a conductive composition to form conductive grids or metal contacts of a solar cell device) [Abstract, paras. 0005 and 0009-0022], the paste comprising:
an organic vehicle (corresponding to organic medium) [paras. 0013 and 0040], and
a mixture of particles in the organic vehicle (the paste composition comprises a mixture of particles including metal particles and additive particles mixed in the organic medium) [paras. 0009-0014, 0026-0028, 0035-0036, 0038 and 0042], the particles including:
copper-containing particles including metallic copper particles and/or copper alloy particles (the metal particles may consist of Cu or alloys of Cu) (instant claims 2 and 13) [paras. 0040, 0049, 0063 and 0079], and
antimony oxide particles (the paste comprises antimony oxide particles as an additive or as part of the glass frit or both) [paras. 0014, 0035-0036 and 0038-0039],
wherein the paste is 62 wt.% to 98. wt.% copper (the metal or derivatives thereof is from about 60 to about 95 wt. % of the solid components of the thick-film composition) [paras. 0026-0027].
The court has held that when, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art [see MPEP 2131.03]. "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Regarding claims 3 and 16
Hörtheis teaches the paste as set forth above, wherein the paste is from 1 wt.% to 15 wt.% of the antimony oxide particles (0.2 weight % to 5 weight %) [paras. 0036 and 0038].
The court has held that when, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art [see MPEP 2131.03]. "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Regarding claims 4 and 17
Hörtheis teaches the paste as set forth above, wherein the mixture of particles further includes: one or more of metal nanoparticles, metal oxide nanoparticles, and metal hydroxide nanoparticles (corresponding to any of (1) glass nanoparticles comprising metal oxides and/or (2) additives comprising metal or metal oxide nanoparticles) [paras. 0030-0032, 0034-0035 and 0038].
Examiner notes that the glass particles disclosed in Hörtheis comprise metal oxides nanoparticles having a diameter of, for example, 100 nm (0.1 µm = 100 nm; 1µm = 1000 nm), and therefore meets with the limitation “metal oxide nanoparticles”.
Further, the additives contained in the paste comprise particles having a diameter of not more than 5 µm (preferably equal to or less than 1 µm), which meets with the limitations “metal nanoparticles” and “metal oxide nanoparticles”. [see paras. 0035 and 0038].
Regarding claims 5 and 18
Hörtheis teaches the paste as set forth above, wherein the metal of the one or more of metal nanoparticles, metal oxide nanoparticles, and metal hydroxide nanoparticles is one or more of nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), cobalt (Co), manganese (Mn), and silver (Ag) (the glass frit nanoparticles include lead oxide powder while the additives include particles selected from (a) a metal selected from Zn, Al, Ti, Sn, Ru, Co, In, Ag, Bi, Sb, and Mg (b) a metal oxide, wherein the metal is selected from Zn, Sn, Sb, Ru, and Co (c) any compounds that can generate the metal oxides of (b) upon firing, and (d) mixtures thereof) [para. 0034].
Regarding claims 6 and 19
Hörtheis teaches the paste as set forth above, wherein the mixture of particles further includes:
metal oxide nanoparticles (corresponding to any one of (1) glass nanoparticles comprising metal oxides and/or (2) additives comprising metal oxides nanoparticles) [paras. 0030-0032 and 0034].
Examiner notes that the glass particles disclosed in Hörtheis comprise metal oxides nanoparticles having a diameter of, for example, 100 nm (0.1 µm = 100 nm; 1µm = 1000 nm), and therefore meets with the limitation “metal oxide nanoparticles”.
Further, the additives contained in the paste comprise particles having a diameter of not more than 5 µm (preferably equal to or less than 1 µm), which meets with the limitation “metal oxide nanoparticles”. [see paras. 0035 and 0038].
Regarding claims 7 and 20
Hörtheis teaches the paste as set forth above, wherein the metal of the metal oxide nanoparticles is one or more of nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), cobalt (Co), manganese (Mn), and silver (Ag) [paras. 0030 and 0034].
Regarding claims 8 and 21
Hörtheis teaches the paste as set forth above, wherein the metal of the metal oxide nanoparticles is one or more of nickel (Ni) and lead (Pb) (the glass frit nanoparticles having a lead oxide content of less than 0.5 weight %) [para. 0030].
Regarding claims 12 and 22
Hörtheis teaches a solar cell made with the paste of claims 1 and 13 above [paras. 0009-0022 and 0044-0056].
Regarding claim 14
Hörtheis teaches the paste as set forth above, wherein the copper-containing alloy particles contain copper as a principal component (alloys of Cu) [paras. 0025-0027].
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 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hörtheis as applied to claims 1-8, 12-14 and 16-22 above, and further in view of US 2011/0277831, Yoshida et al.* (hereinafter “Yoshida”).
*Cited in the IDS received on 03/12/2025.
Regarding claim 9
Hörtheis teaches the paste as set forth above, wherein the organic vehicle comprises ethylhydroxyethyl cellulose, wood rosin, mixtures of ethyl cellulose and phenolic resins, polymethacrylates of lower alcohols, and monobutyl ether of ethylene glycol monoacetate [para. 0040].
Hörtheis does not teach polyvinylpyrrolidone.
Yoshida teaches a paste for use in metallization of a solar cell (paste composition for photovoltaic cell electrode) [see Abstract], wherein the organic vehicle can include cellulose-based resins such as ethyl cellulose, polyvinyl pyrrolidones, among other known polymers that are generally used in the art [paragraph 0122].
Hörtheis and Yoshida are analogous invention in the field of conductive pastes for use in metallization of a solar cell. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the organic vehicle of Hörtheis to comprise polyvinylpyrrolidone, as in Yoshida, because such is a suitable resin polymer generally used in the art [Yoshida, paragraph 0122].
Further, because Yoshida shows that ethyl cellulose and polyvinylpyrrolidone were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute ethyl cellulose for polyvinylpyrrolidone [MPEP 2144.06].
Also, because Yoshida teaches choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable organic vehicles for use in metallization pastes for solar cells, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Yoshida teaches that polyvinylpyrrolidone leads to the anticipated success, said organic vehicle is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and commonsense [see MPEP 2143].
Regarding claim 15
Hörtheis teaches the paste as set forth above, wherein the copper-containing alloy particles include particles of one or more of copper-tin alloy particles, copper-zinc alloy particles, copper-nickel alloy particles, copper-aluminum alloy particles, copper-lead alloy particles, and copper-phosphorous alloy particles (the metal is selected from the group consisting of Cu, Ag, Pd, Zn, Ni, Sn, Al, Bi, alloys of Cu, Ag, Zn, Ni, Sn, Al, Bi, Pd, In, Sb and mixtures thereof, the mixtures reading on “alloy particles”) [para. 0025].
Because para. [0025] Hörtheis teaches choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable metals to form the mixture/alloy, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Hörtheis teaches that Cu alloyed with metals such as tin, zinc, nickel, aluminum, lead, etc. leads to the anticipated success, a selection among the metals disclosed in Hörtheis is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) [MPEP 2144.07].
In the alternative, Yoshida teaches a paste for use in metallization of a solar cell [see Abstract], wherein copper-phosphorus alloy particles provide excellent oxidation resistance thereby allowing for an electrode having a low resistivity to be formed. Furthermore, it becomes possible to sinter the electrode at a low temperature, and as a result, an effect of reducing a process cost can be attained [para. 0049].
Hörtheis and Yoshida are analogous invention in the field of conductive pastes for use in metallization of a solar cell. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the copper-containing alloy particles of Hörtheis to comprise copper-phosphorus alloy particles, as in Yoshida, for the purpose of improving the oxidation resistance and reducing production costs.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hörtheis as applied to claims 1-8, 12-14 and 16-22 above, and further in view of US 2012/0061624 A1*, Jung et al. (hereinafter “Jung”).
*Cited in the IDS received on 01/31/2025.
Regarding claim 10
Hörtheis teaches the paste as set forth above, wherein the mixture of particles further includes:
metal oxide and/or metal hydroxide particles (corresponding to additives comprising metal oxides particles) [paras. 0034+0035],
Hörtheis does not teach the metal of the metal oxide and/or metal hydroxide particles being one or more of copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), and manganese (Mn).
Jung teaches a conductive paste for use in metallization of a solar cell [para. 0006] comprising a mixture of particles copper-containing particles (corresponding to metallic powder comprising Cu) [para. 0027] and further including metal oxide particles [para. 0044], wherein the metal of the metal oxide particles comprises copper (Cu) [para. 0045].
The metal oxide particles comprising CuO improve contact resistance of electrodes and may promote crystallization of the paste [para. 0044].
Hörtheis and Jung are analogous invention in the field of conductive pastes for use in metallization of a solar cell. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mixture of particles within the paste of Hörtheis to further comprise metal oxide particles of copper (Cu),a s in Jung, for the purpose of improving the contact resistance of electrodes and to promote crystallization of the paste.
Regarding claim 11
Modified Hörtheis teaches the paste as set forth above, wherein the metal oxide particles are bonded to surfaces of the copper-containing particles (the metal oxide particles are included in the mixture of particles, all of which are in contact within the paste) [Jung, paras. 0044-0048; Hörtheis, para. 0042].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0181277 A1, Park et al. (cited in the IDS received on 03/12/2025) teaches a paste for use in metallization of a solar cell (corresponding to an electroconductive paste for forming electrodes on a solar cell) [Abstract and paragraphs 0057-0060], the paste comprising glass frit (analogous to the claimed metal-oxide containing nanoparticles) comprising a metal oxide of at least one elemental metal (the “at least one” meeting with the limitation of “mixed oxide”) selected from tellurium (Te), lithium (Li), zinc (Zn), bismuth (Bi), lead (Pb), sodium (Na), phosphorus (P), germanium (Ge), gallium (Ga), cerium (Ce), iron (Fe), silicon (Si), tungsten (W), magnesium (Mg), molybdenum (Mo), cesium (Cs), strontium (Sr), titanium (Ti), tin (Sn), indium (In), vanadium (V), barium (Ba), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), potassium (K), arsenic (As), cobalt (Co), zirconium (Zr), manganese (Mn), aluminum (Al), and boron (B) [paragraphs 0065- 0067].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - EST.
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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721