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 .
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.
Claim 7 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 7 recites that the refractive of the surface of the refractive-index varying layer (region) on the opposite side of the top cell is 1.0 or more and 1.1 or less. As best can be determined by the instant specification, refractive indices of 1.1 or less are achieved by forming concavo-convex protrusions on that side of the refractive index-varying layer or region (bottom p. 21, bottom p. 49, middle p. 54, top of p. 60, middle p. 65 of specification). A skilled artisan would understand that it is not the material of the refractive index-varying layer itself with a refractive index of under 1.1, but some average of the material of the refractive index-varying layer and the material (or lack of material) filling the empty space not taken up by the concavo-convex protrusions. Such a calculable composite refractive index is conceivable, but is not commonly known in the art, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be informed of how to determine the composited index of a material with concavo-convex protrusions in the prior art. The top of p. 11 of the instant specification says a refractive index can be determined by using a spectroscopic ellipsometer, but it is not clear if a comparison to another surface, or a particular calibration, is required.
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) 1-3, 5, 6, 11-13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0047922 to Forrest (included in Applicant’s IDS filed 10/14/2025).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 6, 11-13, 15, and 17, Forrest teaches a photovoltaic power generation system (¶0007, 0021) comprising a solar cell which generates electric power (Fig. 2), the solar cell comprising
A top cell (“VIS PV (OPV)”) which is a transparent-type top cell (the top cell is transparent to NIR radiation, ¶0030), wherein
When the top cell is connected to a bottom cell (“NIR PV (QD CELLS)”), the top cell comprises a refractive index-varying layer (“DBR”, Fig. 5, ¶0031) on the side of the bottom cell and a gap layer (“AIR GAP”) between the refractive index-varying layer and the bottom cell
The refractive index-varying layer on the side of the top cell has a higher refractive index (the top portion of the “DBR” layer, labeled “ZnSe/MgF2(25 nm/99 nm)” has both a ZnSe material layer and a MgF2 layer, and the cited text recites that those two materials have different indices; while it is not recited which of ZnSe or MgF2 has a higher index, at least one of them necessarily has a higher refractive index, and is on the side of the top cell)
The refractive index-varying layer on the side of the bottom cell has a lower refractive index (the last two portions of the “DBR” layer on a side near the bottom cell includes a MgF2 layer and a ZnSe layer, respectively; at least one of those two layers has a lower refractive index, and is on the side of the bottom cell).
The gap layer is bounded on sides in Fig. 2 by portions of a metal grid 320 (Figs. 1, ¶0018), which in the disclosed embodiments, establishes electrical continuity between the top cell and bottom cell (¶0021). However, the gap itself does not provide electrical continuity; therefore the gap layer “can isolate electronically the top cell from the bottom cell”.
Per claim 5, Forrest teaches the limitations of claim 1. The gap layer (“AIR GAP”) is electrically insulative, as it clearly lacks conductive material.
Per claim 6, Forrest teaches the limitations of claim 1. The refractive index-varying layer is in direct contact with the top cell (Fig. 2), and is placed on a light-exiting surface of the top cell.
Per claim 11, Forrest teaches the limitations of claim 1. The gap layer is a layer including air (Fig. 2).
Per claim 12, Forrest teaches the limitations of claim 1. The top cell has a light-absorbing layer whose bandgap is wider than that of the bottom cell (Fig. 2, ¶0004, 0020).
Per claim 13, Forrest teaches the limitations of claim 1. The cell further comprises a holding member (not labeled in Fig. 2, labeled 320 or 418 in Figs. 1, ¶0018), wherein the holding member secures the top cell with the bottom cell (¶0019).
Per claim 15, Forrest teaches the limitations of claim 1. The cell further comprises a bottom cell (see reasoning above).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Forrest teaches a solar cell (Fig. 2) comprising
A top cell (“VIS PV (OPV)”) which is a transparent-type top cell (the top cell is transparent to NIR radiation, ¶0030), wherein
When the top cell is connected to a bottom cell (“NIR PV (QD CELLS)”), the top cell comprises a refractive index-varying layer (“DBR”, Fig. 5, ¶0031) on the side of the bottom cell and a gap layer (“AIR GAP”) between the refractive index-varying layer and the bottom cell
The refractive index-varying layer on the side of the top cell has a higher refractive index (the top portion of the “DBR” layer, labeled “ZnSe/MgF2(25 nm/99 nm)” has both a ZnSe material layer and a MgF2 layer, and the cited text recites that those two materials have different indices; while it is not recited which of ZnSe or MgF2 has a higher index, at least one of them necessarily has a higher refractive index, and is on the side of the top cell)
The refractive index-varying layer on the side of the bottom cell has a lower refractive index (the last two portions of the “DBR” layer on a side near the bottom cell includes a MgF2 layer and a ZnSe layer, respectively; at least one of those two layers has a lower refractive index, and is on the side of the bottom cell)
The refractive index-varying layer is not in direct contact with the bottom cell.
Per claim 16, Forrest teaches the limitations of claim 2. The cell further comprises a bottom cell (see reasoning above).
Regarding claim 3, Forrest teaches a solar cell (Fig. 2) comprising
A top cell (“VIS PV (OPV)”) which is a transparent-type top cell (the top cell is transparent to NIR radiation, ¶0030)
A refractive index-varying layer (“DBR”, Fig. 5, ¶0031) on the side of the light-exiting surface, wherein
The refractive index-varying layer on the side of the top cell has a higher refractive index (the top portion of the “DBR” layer, labeled “ZnSe/MgF2(25 nm/99 nm)” has both a ZnSe material layer and a MgF2 layer, and the cited text recites that those two materials have different indices; while it is not recited which of ZnSe or MgF2 has a higher index, at least one of them necessarily has a higher refractive index, and is on the side of the top cell)
The refractive index-varying layer on the opposite side of the top cell has a lower refractive index (the last two portions of the “DBR” layer on a side opposite the top cell includes a MgF2 layer and a ZnSe layer, respectively; at least one of those two layers has a lower refractive index, and is on the opposite side of the top cell).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Forrest as applied to claim 1 above. Supporting information regarding physical properties is provided by US 2012/0152347 to Lee.
Regarding claim 8, Forrest teaches the limitations of claim 1. The refractive index of the top cell on the side of the refractive index-varying layer is the refractive index of ITO (Fig. 2). While Forrest does not specifically teach the refractive index of ITO, Lee provides evidence that the refractive index is 1.3 or more and 2. 2 or less (Table 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, Forrest teaches the limitations of claim 1. The refractive index of a member of which is in direct contact with the refractive index-varying layer is the refractive index of ITO (Fig. 2). While Forrest does not specifically teach the refractive index of ITO, Lee provides evidence that the refractive index is 1.3 or more and 2. 2 or less (Table 1-2).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Forrest as applied to claim 1 above. Supporting information regarding physical properties is provided by Lee and US 5,846,649 to Knapp.
Regarding claim 10, Forrest teaches the limitations of claim 1. The member of the top cell which is in direct contact with the refractive index-varying layer is a layer of ITO (Fig. 2). While Forrest does not specifically teach the refractive index of ITO, Lee provides evidence that the refractive index is 2.05 at 550 nm (Table 1-2). The refractive index of the refractive index-varying layer on the side of the top cell is that of ZnSe, which is 2.65 at 550 nm according to Knapp (C1/L53-C2/L5). Therefore the claimed absolute value of difference is more than 0.0 and less than 1.0.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0328319 to Mellor (included in Applicant’s IDS filed 10/14/2025).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 17, Mellor teaches a photovoltaic power generation system (¶0056) comprising a solar cell (Fig. 3) which generates electric power, the solar cell comprising
A top cell 3 which is a transparent-type top cell (cell 3 is transparent to light represented by 9 in Figs. 3, 9, ¶0075, 0101), wherein the top cell is connected to a bottom cell 7, the top cell comprises a grating layer 4 (¶0087-0089) on the side of the bottom cell and a gap layer 5 (¶0078) between the grating layer and the bottom cell
The gap layer 5 can isolate electronically the top cell 3 from the bottom cell 7 (¶0098).
The grating layer 4 comprises a continuous portion formed of the material of the grating on the side of the top cell (see Marked-up Fig. 3 below, ¶0092), and a mixed portion on the side of the bottom cell which comprises projections of the material of the grating extending away from the continuous portion, a material of layer 5 filling the space between projections. Therefore the side of the top cell of the grating layer 4 has an index of refraction equal to that of the material of the grating, and the side of the bottom cell of the grating layer 4 has an index of refraction that is a weighted average of the two indices of refraction of layers 4 and 5, weighted by the proportion of the volume taken up by the projections to the volume taken up by the air of layer 5. Since the material of grating 4 is a solid, and thus necessarily has a is higher index of refraction than the index of the air of layer 5 (~1), the grating layer 4 is a refractive index-varying layer with a higher refractive index on the side of the top cell and a lower refractive index on the side of the bottom cell.
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Side of the top cell
Side of the bottom cell)]
PNG
media_image1.png
370
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 5, Mellor teaches the limitations of claim 1. The gap layer 5 is formed of air, and therefore necessarily insulative.
Per claim 6, Mellor teaches the limitations of claim 1. The refractive index-varying layer 4 is in direct contact with the top cell 3 (Fig. 3, ¶0083).
Per claim 11, Mellor teaches the limitations of claim 1. The gap layer is a layer including air (see reasoning above).
Per claim 12, Mellor teaches the limitations of claim 1. The top cell 3 has a light-absorbing layer whose bandgap is wider than that of the bottom cell 7 (¶0007, 0110).
Per claim 14, Mellor teaches the limitations of claim 1. The refractive index of the refractive index-varying layer 4 decreases step-likely towards the opposite side of the top cell from the side of the top cell (from the index of the refraction of material 4 to a weighted combination of the indices of refraction of material 4 and that of air).
Per claim 15, Mellor teaches the limitations of claim 1. Mellor teaches that the solar cell further comprises a bottom cell 7 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Mellor teaches a solar cell (Fig. 3), the solar cell comprising
A top cell 3 which is a transparent-type top cell (cell 3 is transparent to light represented by 9 in Figs. 3, 9, ¶0075, 0101), wherein the top cell is connected to a bottom cell 7, the top cell comprises a grating layer 4 (¶0087-0089) on the side of the bottom cell and a gap layer 5 (¶0078) between the grating layer and the bottom cell
The grating layer 4 is not in direct contact with the bottom cell 7 (¶0098).
The grating layer 4 comprises a continuous portion formed of the material of the grating on the side of the top cell (see Marked-up Fig. 3 above, ¶0092), and a mixed portion on the side of the bottom cell which comprises projections of the material of the grating extending away from the continuous portion, a material of layer 5 filling the space between projections. Therefore the side of the top cell of the grating layer 4 has an index of refraction equal to that of the material of the grating, and the side of the bottom cell of the grating layer 4 has an index of refraction that is a weighted average of the two indices of refraction of layers 4 and 5, weighted by the proportion of the volume taken up by the projections to the volume taken up by the air of layer 5. Since the material of grating 4 is a solid, and thus necessarily has a is higher index of refraction than the index of the air of layer 5 (~1), the grating layer 4 is a refractive index-varying layer with a higher refractive index on the side of the top cell and a lower refractive index on the side of the bottom cell.
Per claim 16, Mellor teaches the limitations of claim 2. Mellor teaches that the solar cell further comprises a bottom cell 7 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Mellor teaches a solar cell (Fig. 3), the solar cell comprising
A top cell 3 which is a transparent-type top cell (cell 3 is transparent to light represented by 9 in Figs. 3, 9, ¶0075, 0101), and a grating layer 4 (¶0087-0089) on the side of the light exiting surface.
The grating layer 4 comprises a continuous portion formed of the material of the grating on the side of the top cell (see Marked-up Fig. 3 above, ¶0092), and a mixed portion on the opposite side of the top cell (equivalent to “side of the bottom cell” in Marked-up Fig. 3) which comprises projections of the material of the grating extending away from the continuous portion, a material of layer 5 filling the space between projections. Therefore the side of the top cell of the grating layer 4 has an index of refraction equal to that of the material of the grating, and the opposite side of the top cell of the grating layer 4 has an index of refraction that is a weighted average of the two indices of refraction of layers 4 and 5, weighted by the proportion of the volume taken up by the projections to the volume taken up by the air of layer 5. Since the material of grating 4 is a solid, and thus necessarily has a is higher index of refraction than the index of the air of layer 5 (~1), the grating layer 4 is a refractive index-varying layer with a higher refractive index on the side of the top cell and a lower refractive index on the opposite side of the top cell.
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) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mellor as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Mellor teaches the limitations of claim 1. 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 refractive index-varying layer of an dielectric material (¶0120), as it would have merely been the choice of a known material for its art-recognized purpose. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). As such, the refractive index-varying layer of modified-Mellor will be electrically insulative.
Per claim 7, Mellor teaches the limitations of claim 1. As noted, in an interpretation the refractive index of the refractive index-varying layer on the opposite side of the top cell is a weighted average of the refractive index of the material of the grating and the refractive index of air (~1), the material of layer 5. A skilled artisan would choose the material of the grating to fulfill at least the requirement that the grating is transparent (¶0014, 0092, 0019). Regardless, the refractive index of the material of the grating will be larger than that of air.
The volume taken up by the grating, and therefore the proportion of grating material on the opposite side of the top cell, is determined by the geometry of the grating, which may vary from that schematically shown in Figs. 3, 9 (¶0014, 0092). 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 vary the geometry of the grating that partially forms the refractive index-varying layer, in order to achieve optimal scattering from the grating (¶0081, 0089).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
As such, the claimed result of a refractive index of the surface of the refractive index-varying layer on the opposite side of the top cell being in the claimed range is an obvious result of such optimization.
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