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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, corresponding to claims 1-7 and 15-20 in the reply filed on 07/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-2, 4-7, 15-16, and 18-20 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. Specifically, lines 9 and 10 of claim 1 recite “such that the Fermi level at the interface is near a valence band edge of the n-type doped semiconductor,” however, the term “near” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Similarly, lines 8 and 9 of claim 15 recite “such that the Fermi level at the interface is near a valence band edge of the n-type doped semiconductor,” however, the term “near” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2, 4-7, 16, and 18-20 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claims 1 and 15.
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 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. Specifically, lines 14 and 15 of claim 1 recite “a lightly doped p-type layer,” however, the term “lightly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Similarly, lines 13 and 14 of claim 15 recite “a lightly doped p-type layer,” however, the term “lightly” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 2-7 and 16-20 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claims 1 and 15.
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 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. Specifically, line 4 of claim 1 recites “wherein the n-type doped semiconductor comprises a barrier layer,” and lines 14 and 15 of claim 1 recite “wherein the barrier layer is selected from one of: an intrinsic layer and a lightly doped p-type layer,” which renders claim 1 indefinite because the manner in which an n-type doped semiconductor comprises an intrinsic layer or a lightly doped p-type layer is unclear. Similarly, lines 2 and 3 of claim 15 recite “wherein the n-type doped semiconductor comprises a barrier layer,” and lines 13 and 14 of claim 15 recite “wherein the barrier layer is selected from one of: an intrinsic layer and a lightly doped p-type layer” which renders claim 15 indefinite because the manner in which an n-type doped semiconductor comprises an intrinsic layer or a lightly doped p-type layer is unclear. Claims 2-7 and 16-20 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claims 1 and 15.
Claims 1-7 and 15-20 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. Specifically, lines 12 and 13 of claim 1 recite the limitation “the hole carriers from the barrier layer,” however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the hole carriers” in the claim. Similarly, lines 11 and 12 of claim 15 recite the limitation “the hole carriers from the barrier layer,” however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the hole carriers” in the claim. Claims 2-7 and 16-20 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claims 1 and 15.
Claims 15-20 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. Specifically, line 1 of claim 15 recites “a thin-film device,” the term “thin” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 16-20 are rejected due to their respective dependence on claim 15.
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 1-5 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brenner et al. (WO 2023/133491 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Brenner discloses a junction (Fig. 8) comprising: an n-type doped semiconductor (92 in Fig. 8); and a hole-selective contact layer (p-ZnTe layer in Fig. 8); wherein the n-type doped semiconductor comprises a barrier layer (i-Mg0.4Cd0.6Te layer in Fig. 8); wherein the hole-selective contact layer is deposited directly on the barrier layer (p-ZnTe layer in relation to i-Mg0.4Cd0.6Te layer in Fig. 8), forming an interface between the hole-selective contact layer and the barrier layer (p-ZnTe layer in relation to i-Mg0.4Cd0.6Te layer in Fig. 8), wherein the barrier layer is an intrinsic layer (i-Mg0.4Cd0.6Te layer in Fig. 8).
With regard to the limitation “wherein a composition of the barrier layer is chosen to tailor a Fermi level at the interface such that the Fermi level at the interface is near a valence band edge of the n-type doped semiconductor, wherein the tailored Fermi level at the interface near the valence band edge of the n-type doped semiconductor is sufficient to extract the hole carriers from the barrier layer,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 15, Brenner discloses a method for forming a junction ([0037]; Fig. 8) in a thin-film device ([0037]; the LED disclosed contains thin films and therefore interpreted to satisfy the limitation “a thin-film device”) comprising: providing an n-type doped semiconductor (92 in Fig. 8), wherein the n-type doped semiconductor comprises a barrier layer (i-Mg0.4Cd0.6Te layer in Fig. 8); and depositing a hole-selective contact layer (p-ZnTe layer in Fig. 8) directly on the n-type doped semiconductor forming an interface between the hole-selective contact layer and the barrier layer (p-ZnTe layer in relation to i-Mg0.4Cd0.6Te layer in Fig. 8); and wherein the barrier layer is an intrinsic layer (i-Mg0.4Cd0.6Te layer in Fig. 8).
With regard to the limitation “wherein a composition of the barrier layer is chosen to tailor a Fermi level at the interface such that the Fermi level at the interface is near a valence band edge of the n-type doped semiconductor, wherein the tailored Fermi level at the interface near the valence band edge of the n-type doped semiconductor is sufficient to extract the hole carriers from the barrier layer,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Brenner discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Brenner further discloses the composition of the intrinsic layer is Mg0.4Cd0.6Te (i-Mg0.4Cd0.6Te layer in Fig. 8), and wherein the hole-selective contact layer is transparent (p-ZnTe in Fig. 8).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Brenner discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein the tailored Fermi level at the interface has a value less than approximately 0.1 eV from a value of the valence band edge at the interface,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 18-19, Brenner discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Brenner further discloses the composition of the intrinsic layer is Mg0.4Cd0.6Te (i-Mg0.4Cd0.6Te layer in Fig. 8).
Claims 1-5 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Becker et al. (“Monocrystalline CdTe/MgCdTe Double-Heterostructure Solar Cells with ZnTe Hole Contacts”).
Regarding claim 1, Becker discloses a junction (Fig. 1) comprising: an n-type doped semiconductor (absorber layer in Fig. 1); and a hole-selective contact layer (p-ZnTe: As or Cu layer in Fig. 1); wherein the n-type doped semiconductor comprises a barrier layer (i-Mg0.4Cd0.6Te layer in Fig. 1); wherein the hole-selective contact layer is deposited directly on the barrier layer (p-ZnTe layer in relation to i-Mg0.4Cd0.6Te layer in Fig. 1), forming an interface between the hole-selective contact layer and the barrier layer (p-ZnTe layer in relation to i-Mg0.4Cd0.6Te layer in Fig. 1), wherein the barrier layer is an intrinsic layer (i-Mg0.4Cd0.6Te layer in Fig. 1).
With regard to the limitation “wherein a composition of the barrier layer is chosen to tailor a Fermi level at the interface such that the Fermi level at the interface is near a valence band edge of the n-type doped semiconductor, wherein the tailored Fermi level at the interface near the valence band edge of the n-type doped semiconductor is sufficient to extract the hole carriers from the barrier layer,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 15, Becker discloses a method for forming a junction (abstract; Fig. 1) in a thin-film device (abstract; note: the solar cell disclosed contains thin films and therefore interpreted to satisfy the limitation “a thin-film device”) comprising: providing an n-type doped semiconductor (absorber layer in Fig. 1), wherein the n-type doped semiconductor comprises a barrier layer (i-Mg0.4Cd0.6Te layer in Fig. 1); and depositing a hole-selective contact layer (p-ZnTe layer in Fig. 1) directly on the n-type doped semiconductor forming an interface between the hole-selective contact layer and the barrier layer (p-ZnTe layer in relation to i-Mg0.4Cd0.6Te layer in Fig. 1); and wherein the barrier layer is an intrinsic layer (i-Mg0.4Cd0.6Te layer in Fig. 1).
With regard to the limitation “wherein a composition of the barrier layer is chosen to tailor a Fermi level at the interface such that the Fermi level at the interface is near a valence band edge of the n-type doped semiconductor, wherein the tailored Fermi level at the interface near the valence band edge of the n-type doped semiconductor is sufficient to extract the hole carriers from the barrier layer,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Becker discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Becker further discloses the composition of the intrinsic layer is Mg0.4Cd0.6Te (i-Mg0.4Cd0.6Te layer in Fig. 1), and wherein the hole-selective contact layer is transparent (p-ZnTe in Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Becker discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
With regard to the limitation “wherein the tailored Fermi level at the interface has a value less than approximately 0.1 eV from a value of the valence band edge at the interface,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 18-19, Becker discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Becker further discloses the composition of the intrinsic layer is Mg0.4Cd0.6Te (i-Mg0.4Cd0.6Te layer in Fig. 1).
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 6-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al. (“Monocrystalline CdTe/MgCdTe Double-Heterostructure Solar Cells with ZnTe Hole Contacts”) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, in view of Krasnov (US 2008/0047602).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Becker discloses all the claim limitations as set forth
above.
While Becker does disclose a p-ZnTe layer between a TCO and a semiconductor layer (p-ZnTe layer between ITO and i-Mg0.4Cd0.6Te layer in Fig. 1), Becker does not explicitly disclose an n-type indium tin oxide layer between the TCO and the semiconductor layer.
Krasnov discloses an n-type indium tin oxide layer (3b in Fig. 1 is oxygen-rich ITO; [0016]) between a TCO layer and a semiconductor layer of a photovoltaic device (3b in relation to 3a and 5 in Fig. 1; abstract). Krasnov further discloses the high-work function TCO is located between the low work function TCO and the uppermost semiconductor layer of the photovoltaic device so as to provide for substantial work-function matching between the low-work function TCO and the high work-function uppermost semiconductor layer of the device in order to reduce a potential barrier for holes extracted from the device by the front contact (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include an oxygen-rich ITO layer, as disclosed by Krasnov, between the TCO layer and the uppermost semiconductor layer of Becker, because as taught by Krasnov, the high-work function TCO is located between the low work function TCO and the uppermost semiconductor layer of the photovoltaic device so as to provide for substantial work-function matching between the low-work function TCO and the high work-function uppermost semiconductor layer of the device in order to reduce a potential barrier for holes extracted from the device by the front contact (abstract).
Additionally, as evidenced by Krasnov, including an oxygen-rich ITO layer between a TCO layer and semiconductor layer of a photovoltaic device amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when including an oxygen-rich ITO layer between the TCO and semiconductor layers of Becker based on the teaching of Krasnov.
Regarding claim 7, modified Becker discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While modified Becker does disclose a thickness of the deposited hole-selective contact layer is from about 10-300 angstroms (Krasnov - [0017]), and further discloses the overall front contact 3, including both TCO layers 3a and 3b, has an overall thickness of from about 1000 to 2000 angstroms (Krasnov - [0018]), modified Becker does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the deposited hole-selective contact layer is approximately 50 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the hole-selective contact layer of modified Becker with a thickness of approximately 50 nm because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.).
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krasnov (US 2008/0047602) in view of Carlson et al. (US 2010/0084009).
Regarding claim 1, Krasnov discloses a junction (3 and 5 in Fig. 1) comprising: an n-type doped semiconductor ([0012] L14; [0013]); and a hole-selective contact layer (3b in Fig. 1; [0017]); wherein the n-type doped semiconductor comprises a barrier layer ([0017] L10-11 disclose the uppermost portion of semiconductor film 5), wherein the hole-selective contact layer is deposited directly on the barrier layer (3b in relation to 5 in Fig. 1), forming an interface between the hole-selective contact layer and the barrier layer (interface between 3 and uppermost portion of 5 in Fig. 1), wherein a composition of the barrier layer is chosen to tailor a Fermi level at the interface such that the Fermi level at the interface is near a valence band edge of the n-type semiconductor ([0029],[0030]), wherein the tailored Fermi level at the interface near the valence band edge of the n-type doped semiconductor is sufficient to extract the hole carriers from the barrier layer ([0029],[0030]); and wherein the barrier layer is a p-type layer ([0017] L10-11 disclose the uppermost portion of semiconductor film 5).
While Krasnov does disclose the barrier layer is a p-type layer ([0017] L10-11 disclose the uppermost portion of semiconductor film 5), Krasnov does not explicitly disclose the p-type layer is lightly doped.
Carlson discloses a junction comprising an n-type doped semiconductor comprising a lightly doped p-type layer ([0027] L9-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the p-type layer of Krasnov such that the p-type layer is lightly doped, as disclosed by Carlson, because as evidenced by Carlson, the use of a lightly doped p-type layer to form a heterojunction in a photovoltaic device amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the junction of the photovoltaic device of Krasnov with a p-type layer which is lightly doped based on the teaching of Carlson.
It is further noted that with regard to the limitation “wherein a composition of the barrier layer is chosen to tailor a Fermi level at the interface such that the Fermi level at the interface is near a valence band edge of the n-type doped semiconductor, wherein the tailored Fermi level at the interface near the valence band edge of the n-type doped semiconductor is sufficient to extract the hole carriers from the barrier layer,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 15, Krasnov discloses a method for forming a junction (3 and 5 in Fig. 1) in a thin-film device ([0017]; the photovoltaic device disclosed contains thin films and therefore interpreted to satisfy the limitation “a thin-film device”) comprising: providing an n-type doped semiconductor ([0012] L14; [0013]), wherein the n-type doped semiconductor comprises a barrier layer ([0017] L10-11 disclose the uppermost portion of semiconductor film 5); and depositing a hole-selective contact layer (3b in Fig. 1; [0017]) directly on the n-type doped semiconductor forming an interface between the hole-selective contact layer and the barrier layer (interface between 3 and uppermost portion of 5 in Fig. 1); and wherein a composition of the barrier layer is chosen to tailor a Fermi level at the interface such that the Fermi level at the interface is near a valence band edge of the n-type semiconductor ([0029],[0030]), wherein the tailored Fermi level at the interface near the valence band edge of the n-type doped semiconductor is sufficient to extract the hole carriers from the barrier layer ([0029],[0030]); and wherein the barrier layer is a p-type layer ([0017] L10-11 disclose the uppermost portion of semiconductor film 5).
While Krasnov does disclose the barrier layer is a p-type layer ([0017] L10-11 disclose the uppermost portion of semiconductor film 5), Krasnov does not explicitly disclose the p-type layer is lightly doped.
Carlson discloses a junction comprising an n-type doped semiconductor comprising a lightly doped p-type layer ([0027] L9-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the p-type layer of Krasnov such that the p-type layer is lightly doped, as disclosed by Carlson, because as evidenced by Carlson, the use of a lightly doped p-type layer to form a heterojunction in a photovoltaic device amounts to the use of a known material in the art for its intended purpose to achieve an expected result, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when forming the junction of the photovoltaic device of Krasnov with a p-type layer which is lightly doped based on the teaching of Carlson.
It is further noted that with regard to the limitation “wherein a composition of the barrier layer is chosen to tailor a Fermi level at the interface such that the Fermi level at the interface is near a valence band edge of the n-type doped semiconductor, wherein the tailored Fermi level at the interface near the valence band edge of the n-type doped semiconductor is sufficient to extract the hole carriers from the barrier layer,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, modified Krasnov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Krasnov further discloses Fermi level alignment at the interface (Krasnov – [0029]). It is further noted that with regard to the limitation “wherein the tailored Fermi level at the interface has a value less than approximately 0.1 eV from a value of the valence band edge at the interface,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, modified Krasnov discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Krasnov further discloses the hole-selective contact layer is n-type indium tin oxide (Krasnov – 3b in Fig. 1 is oxygen-rich ITO; [0016]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Krasnov discloses all the claim limitations as set
forth above.
While modified Krasnov does disclose a thickness of the deposited hole-selective contact layer is from about 10-300 angstroms (Krasnov - [0017]), and further discloses the overall front contact 3, including both TCO layers 3a and 3b, has an overall thickness of from about 1000 to 2000 angstroms (Krasnov - [0018]), modified Krasnov does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the deposited hole-selective contact layer is approximately 50 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the hole-selective contact layer of modified Krasnov with a thickness of approximately 50 nm because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm 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, 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights