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 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, “silicone” should be changed to “silicon”.
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 8 and 18 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 8 contains the limitation “wherein the bifacial light-receiving silicon/perovskite tandem solar cell is configured to be a two-terminal bifacial light-receiving silicon/perovskite tandem solar cell in which the perovskite upper cell further includes a second grid electrode on an upper side of the perovskite absorbing layer, when the interconnecting layer is a recombination layer, and wherein the bifacial light-receiving silicon/perovskite tandem solar cell is configured to be a four-terminal bifacial light-receiving silicon/perovskite tandem solar cell in which the silicon lower cell further includes a second grid electrode disposed on the silicon layer, when the interconnecting layer is the intermediate layer”. The claim requires both a two terminal configuration and a four terminal configuration with mutually exclusive limitations to a second grid electrode. Specifically, requiring the second grid electrode to be on an upper side of the perovskite absorbing layer and also requiring the second grid electrode to be part of the silicon lower cell. The requirements of claim 7 are unclear. For the purpose of this Office Action, claim 7 will be treated as if the two terminal and four terminal limitations are in the alternative, replacing the “and” with an “or”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 contains the limitation “(0=x, y=1)” which is unclear in combination with the formulas including these variables. It is suggested that the above limitation be changed to “(0≤x, y≤1)”, such that x and y can be any value from 0 to 1 inclusively.
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 10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (WO 2021/177552A1, see English equivalent US 2023/0092881 for mapping, listed on IDS filed 3/27/2026).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses a bifacial light-receiving silicon/perovskite tandem solar cell in Figure 10, [42]-[43] and [71], comprising:
a silicon lower cell (120) configured to include a silicon layer ([43]) and a first grid electrode (442) disposed on a lower surface of the silicon layer ([70]);
an interconnecting layer (110a) disposed on the silicon lower cell ([53]-[54]); and
a perovskite upper cell (110) disposed on the interconnecting layer (110a) and configured to include an upper surface (Figure 10 and [55]);
wherein the lower surface of the silicon layer includes a pyramid-shaped concave-convex structure (Figure 10 and [44]),
wherein the upper surface of the perovskite upper cell includes a planar surface or a textured surface (Figure 10, upper surface is planar).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee additionally discloses that the perovskite upper cell includes a hole transport layer (116) ([57]-[58]), a perovskite absorbing layer (112) ([56]), an electron transport layer (114) ([57]-[58]), and a transparent electrode layer (420) ([63]).
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee additionally discloses that the transparent electrode layer (420) includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a transparent conductive oxide, a carbonaceous conductive material, a metallic material, and a conductive polymer ([63]).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee additionally discloses that the perovskite upper cell includes a second grid electrode (422) disposed on the transparent electrode layer (420) (Figure 2 and [66]).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee additionally discloses that the perovskite upper cell includes an antireflection film (118) on the transparent electrode layer (420) ([162]-[164] and Figure 10).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee additionally discloses that the second grid electrode (422) is connected to the transparent electrode layer (420) passing through the antireflection film ([163], the anti-reflection film can have openings for the second grid electrode which reads on “passing through” the anti-reflection film).
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee additionally discloses that the perovskite absorbing layer (112) is represented by a formula (I): AMX3 (I) wherein A is a monovalent organic ammonium cation or metal cation, M is a divalent metal cation, and X is a halogen anion ([56]).
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee additionally discloses that the perovskite absorbing layer (112) includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a CH3NH3PbI3, CH3NH3PbIxCl3-x, CH3NH3PbIxBr3-x, CH3NH3PbClxBr3-x, HC(NH2)2PbI3, HC(NH2)2PbIxCl3-x, HC(NH2)2PbIxBr3-x, HC(NH2)2PbClxBr3-x, (CH3NH3)(HC(NH2)2)1-yPbI3, (CH3NH3)(HC(NH2)2)1-yPbIxCl3-x, (CH3NH3)(HC(NH2)2)1-yPbIxBr3-x, or (CH3NH3)(HC(NH2)2)1-yPbClxBr3-x (0≤x, y≤1) ([56]).
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee additionally discloses that the silicon layer includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a crystalline silicon substrate, a p-type amorphous or crystalline silicon, a n-type amorphous or crystalline silicon layer, and an amorphous intrinsic silicon layer ([43]-[45]).
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee additionally discloses that the interconnecting layer (110a) includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a transparent conductive oxide, a carbonaceous conductive material, a metallic material, and a conductive polymer ([54]).
Claims 10, 12-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al. (WO 2021/127654 A1, see equivalent US 2022/0416107 for mapping).
Regarding claim 10, Yu discloses a bifacial light-receiving silicon/perovskite tandem solar cell in Figure 4 and [21], comprising:
a silicon lower cell (406) configured to include a silicon layer and a first grid electrode (432) disposed on a lower surface of the silicon layer ([49]);
an interconnecting layer (404) disposed on the silicon lower cell (406) ([48]); and
a perovskite upper cell (402) disposed on the interconnecting layer (404) and configured to include an upper surface (Figure 4 and [48]);
wherein the lower surface of the silicon layer includes a pyramid-shaped concave- convex structure (As discussed in [47], one or more surfaces of the silicon wafer can be textured with pyramid shaped features), and
wherein the upper surface of the perovskite upper cell (402) includes a planar surface or a textured surface (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, Yu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yu additionally discloses that the perovskite upper cell (402/302) includes a hole transport layer (318), a perovskite absorbing layer (316), an electron transport layer (314), and a transparent electrode layer (312) (Figures 3-4 and [48] and [45]).
Regarding claim 13, Yu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yu additionally discloses that the transparent electrode layer (312) includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a transparent conductive oxide, a carbonaceous conductive material, a metallic material, and a conductive polymer (see transparent conductive oxides listed in [45]).
Regarding claim 14, Yu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yu additionally discloses that the perovskite upper cell (402/302) includes a second grid electrode (310) disposed on the transparent electrode layer (312) ([45] and Figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 17, Yu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yu additionally discloses that the perovskite absorbing layer (316) is represented by a formula (I): AMX3 (I) wherein A is a monovalent organic ammonium cation or metal cation, M is a divalent metal cation, and X is a halogen anion ([44]-[45]).
Regarding claim 18, Yu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yu additionally discloses that the perovskite absorbing layer (316) includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a CH3NH3PbI3, CH3NH3PbIxCl3.x, CH3NH3PbIxBr3.x, CH3NH3PbCxBr3.x, HC(NH2)2PbI3, HC(NH2)2PbIxC3.x, HC(NH2)2PbIxBr3.x, HC(NH2)2PbClxBr3.x, (CH3NH3)(HC(NH2)2)1-yPbJ3, (CH3NH3)(HC(NH2)2)1-yPbIxCl3.x, (CH3NH3)(HC(NH2)2)1-yPbJxBr3.x, or (CH3NH3)(HC(NH2)2)1-yPbClxBr3.x(0≤x, y≤1) ([45]).
Regarding claim 19, Yu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yu additionally discloses that the silicon layer (324/424) includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a crystalline silicon substrate, a p-type amorphous or crystalline silicon, a n-type amorphous or crystalline silicon layer, and an amorphous intrinsic silicon layer ([47] and [49]).
Regarding claim 20, Yu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yu additionally discloses that the interconnecting layer (304/404) includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a transparent conductive oxide, a carbonaceous conductive material, a metallic material, and a conductive polymer ([46]).
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirner et al. (WO 2019/116031, listed on IDS filed 3/27/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Kirner discloses a bifacial light-receiving silicon/perovskite tandem solar cell in Figure 4 (As discussed on Page 16 lines 25-27, the device can be bifacial), comprising:
a silicon lower cell configured to include a silicon layer (Page 13 line 33-Page 14 line 3) and include a first electrode (112) disposed on a lower surface of the silicon layer (Page 20 lines 4-9);
a perovskite upper cell (104) configured to include a perovskite absorbing layer (104) with a thickness of 300-1000 nm (Page 19 lines 31-32); and
an interconnecting layer (105) configured to connect the silicon lower cell and the perovskite upper cell to each other (Figure 4).
Kirner does not disclose the specifically claimed thickness range for the perovskite absorbing layer of 600nm-2,000nm; 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).
Kirner additionally discloses that the lower electrode (112) can include metal fingers (Page 18 line 34-Page 19 line 1), discloses that the device can be bifacial (Page 16 lines 25-27) and discloses that a grid shape of electrodes only cover a small percentage of the surface area of the device to allow the maximum amount of light into the device (Page 18 lines 9-13).
Kirner does not explicitly disclose that the first electrode (112) is a grid electrode; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the first electrode such that it is a grid electrode, in order to allow the maximum amount of light into the device from both sides of the device.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kirner discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kirner additionally discloses that the perovskite absorbing layer (104) has a thickness of 300-1000 nm (Page 19 lines 31-32). Kirner does not disclose the specifically claimed thickness range for the perovskite absorbing layer of 650nm-1700 nm; 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 3, modified Kirner discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kirner additionally discloses that the perovskite upper cell is configured to have a band gap of 1.5-1.75 eV (Page 26 lines 27-30). Kirner does not disclose the specifically claimed band gap range of less than 1.66 eV; 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 4, modified Kirner discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kirner additionally discloses that the silicon lower cell further includes a passivation layer (111) on the lower surface of the silicon layer (109) (Figure 4 and Page 14 lines 20-25), and the first grid electrode (112) is disposed on the passivation layer (111) (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kirner discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kirner additionally discloses that the silicon layer (109) is a p-type silicon layer (Page 14 lines 1-3), and further includes an n-type emitter layer (106) on an upper surface of the silicon layer (Page 17 lines 16-17).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kirner discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kirner additionally discloses that the silicon lower cell is configured to have one structure selected from the group consisting of an aluminum back surface field (Al-BSF) structure, a passivated emitter and rear cell (PERC) structure, a passivated emitter and rear totally diffused (PERT) structure, and a passivated emitter and rear locally diffused (PERL) structure, and a tunnel oxide passivated contact (TOPCon) structure (Page 16 line 7-Page 17 line 15).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kirner discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kirner additionally discloses that the interconnecting layer (105) is configured to be a recombination layer or an intermediate layer including at least one selected from the group consisting of a transparent conductive oxide, a carbonaceous conductive material, a metallic material, and a conductive polymer (Page 23 line 17-Page 24 line 2, layer 105 can be a metallic material such as a metal oxide, which is also a transparent conductive oxide).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kirner discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kirner additionally discloses that the bifacial light-receiving silicon/perovskite tandem solar cell is configured to be a two-terminal bifacial light-receiving silicon/perovskite tandem solar cell (Figure 4) in which the perovskite upper cell further includes a second grid electrode (front grid electrode 100) on an upper side of the perovskite absorbing layer (104) (Page 18 lines 9-13), when the interconnecting layer (105) is a recombination layer (Page 23 line 17-Page 24 line 2, layer 105 can be a metallic material such as a metal oxide, which is also a transparent conductive oxide which is the same material as the recombination layer claimed and will necessarily display the same properties of being a recombination layer. Additionally, semiconductor materials necessarily have some recombination within the layer.).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kirner discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kirner additionally discloses that the silicon lower cell is configured such that at least a portion of its lower surface is formed with pyramid-shaped concavo-convex structure (Figure 4 and Page 14 lines 1-11). Kirner does not explicitly disclose that the pyramid-shaped concavo-convex structure has a pyramid angle of greater than 5°; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pyramid angle in the device of Kirner such that the angle is greater than 5°, as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration of shape. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (WO 2021/127654 A1, see equivalent US 2022/0416107 for mapping), as applied to claims 10 and 14 above.
Regarding claim 11, Yu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yu does not explicitly disclose that the pyramid-shaped concavo-convex structure has a pyramid angle of 30-60°; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pyramid angle in the device of Yu such that the angle is 30-60°, as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration of shape. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Yu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yu additionally discloses that the silicon lower cell includes an antireflection film (430), wherein the first grid electrode (432) passes through the antireflection film (430) ([49] and Figure 4), but Yu does not explicitly disclose that the perovskite upper cell includes an antireflection film on the transparent electrode layer, wherein the second grid electrode is connected to the transparent electrode layer passing through the antireflection film.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add an antireflection film to the perovskite upper cell of Yu on the transparent electrode layer, wherein the second grid electrode is connected to the transparent electrode layer passing through the antireflection film, in order to improve the light collection efficiency of the device.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2021/177552A1, see English equivalent US 2023/0092881 for mapping), as applied to claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee does not explicitly disclose that the pyramid-shaped concavo-convex structure has a pyramid angle of 30-60°; however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pyramid angle in the device of Lee such that the angle is 30-60°, as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration of shape. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/328,573. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/328,573 contain all of the limitations of instant claims 1-20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-7 and 9-18 of copending Application No. 19/352,028. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-4, 6-7 and 9-18 of copending Application No. 19/352,028 contain all of the limitations of instant claims 1-20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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
Prosecution Insights